[clue-admin] Email Lists Referendum

[Greg Knaddison]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM, David L. Anselmi <anselmi at anselmi.us> wrote:
> Greg Knaddison wrote:
>> My understanding is that you are trying to change the group to focus
>> on the local aspects and I am fine with that. There are many times
>> where I've been confused by people who look to local groups for help
>> on a problem that isn't a local problem.
>
> How many national Linux lists are you subscribed to?  I'm not subscribed to any.  I use Google to
> get to Debian-* etc. when I need them.

I was subscribed to the CentOS lists for a few years. The volume and
quality of the discussions were good. Ultimately I just stopped using
CentOS and left the lists.

> I don't think we're trying to change the group to focus on local aspects.  We're trying to make the
> group more connected, more energized and empowered, and more active.  It just happens that what
> makes CLUE special is that it's *here*.

Then I just plain don't understand how you build energy with some of
the current suggested actions (a vote that requires attendance makes
mailing list members second class citizens, merging things to one
list).

> Some people think that meeting attendance is important--we should have interesting meetings that
> many want to attend and where we can meet each other.  I agree with that.

I'll agree with the second half.

> Some people think that people aren't sure how to be part of the group because they don't know what
> list to watch.  I don't know why that's hard but I don't mind if they try to fix it.

We should prove this claim with a survey before changing the mailing
list structure.

> Some people think it's hard to get the word out to the group because we don't have a list with
> everyone on it.  I agree with that.  I can imagine other ways to address it besides one list but no
> one is currently working on other ways that I know of.

>From the claim "it's hard to get the word out" I'll abstract to the
normative statement "people aren't responding the way we want."

Now some positive statements:
* Create a moderated mailing list that includes all members, but
without deleting the current mailing lists.
* Write better copy when you want to get your message out.
* Have a more compelling thing to say.

Merging all the mailing lists is a solution but it's not the only
solution and it has downsides.

> I don't know why "meeting attendees" were considered "better" than the rest of the list members.
> Certainly those who will get involved will have more influence over what happens than those who
> don't.  But hopefully it's clear that our "community" is all our list members.

Obviously I agree.

Cheers,
Greg