[BALUG-Talk] List policy Scale appropriateness RE: Tele-questioning Re: [BALUG-Announce] OpenMoko CEO @ BALUG (Tuesday Nov 18)

[john_re]

#1: Thanks again, Andrew, for your volunteer efforts for BALUG.  :)

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:48:38 -0800, "Andrew Fife" <AFife at untangle.com>
said:
> John:
> 
> BALUG has 3 primary lists so that folks can subscribe to the content that
> is most targeted to their interests.  Topic is the issue, not post
> volume.  

Concept: Scale appropriateness is the most relevant/appropriate issue.
The fact is that that 3 list structure is inappropriate to the current
size/volume, for my (or most any generally) asked question/topic of
discussion on the main BALUG list.

That is the concept that maybe seems to be where your suggestion (ex -
post to the balug-admin, not the main balug list) fails to be
appropriate.

Point: While it is nice to have the fine-grainedness of having 3 lists,
for merely getting some business done (asking a question, getting an
answer) it is both overkill & mal-adaptive to redirect to several lists
stuff which is most efficiently done on merely one list.  (And in fact
that 3 list structure & your suggested posting policy _would be_
appropriate for a group with a substantially larger volume of messages
than BALUG currently has.)

By redirecting to more than one list, when the volume is so low, the
subscribership of the non primary lists is such that items don't get
seen by the larger community - cause most people are pretty busy, &
rightly don't make time to subscribe to more than one list.

Point: the actual volume of messages relevant for BALUG _members_, the
_community_, is such that the optimal placement of general topics about
the general management of the group should go to the main list, not some
subsidiary list.

So, for instance, if the web or list administrator people want to have
their own list to discuss that, that's fine - it compartmentalizes some
messages that are germane to a small set of people. 

But, for general discussion originating from the "general membership"
about various matters that may arise (carpooling, teleconferencing
procedures for a talk at a meeting, etc), it is _not_ appropriate to
have that discussion anywhere but on the main/general list.  That's what
I believe is actually/truly/factually correct/best.

I believe absolutely your statement "topic is the issue" is not the
appropriate/best _policy_ for the present size/volume/membership that
BALUG has.


==
> Furthermore, BALUG is run informally by active volunteers
> without designated officers.  Balug-admin subscribers/volunteers are not
> obligated to respond to any message gets posted to the list.  

OK, fine, not obligated _in general_, but specifically it was _you_ who
affirmed-directed me (in the previous case) to post there, & yet then
_you_ didn't bother to reply when I did post there.  By dint of _your_
having seconded the list managers decision that that thread should be
moved to the other list, and your having thus been the "final decision
maker-affirmer / group-leader" _you Andrew_ had an obligation to respond
to the issue raised in that thread.


==
> Little or
> no response on the admin list is generally taken as a sign that its
> subscribers prefer the status quo.

But that was not the case.  100 % of the posters to the thread (who are
of course _subscribers_ to that list) you'd asked me to move to Admin
(me, the creator of the idea/suggestion re carpooling, & Jesse, the
other member commenting on it) were in favor of the community (my)
generated suggestion (about carpooling postings), & yet the person who'd
finalized-directed the discussion there, _you_, didn't bother to reply.

So, when a community member (me) made a valueable suggestion, & _You_
requested it be moved to a lesserly subscribed list, & when not only did
I do that, but _another_ community member followed & commented that he
thought the idea I'd suggested was good, _you_ (the volunteer/leader
who'd made the final-affirmation-of-decision about moving the thread)
didn't follow up on _two_ community member's input/request.

Hence, the _double_ reason I believe your suggestion to move my
_current_ question there is inappropriate:
1) It's improper for a group with as little discussion as there
currently is on BALUG lists to move a topic of general interest to a
smaller subsidiary list, & 
2) Your _own_ past neglect of relevant postings by _two_ members to that
exact same list, when _you_ were the leader/volunteer who seconded the
list manager's (bad [for the reasons I've just outlined]) suggestion to
move that discussion there.


==
So, anyway, once again, Andrew, I think it would really be great of you
if you would please answer my simple questions here, because I believe
the facts indicate that _this_ list is the proper location for questions
& answers of this nature to be raised & answered for the BALUG
community.


"Would it would be OK with you for me to both:
1) listen to the talk remotely?, & 
2) to ask a question (time permitting, as for all audience questions) to
the speaker from remotely?


Thanks for your kind consideration.   :) 

All the best, to you, Andrew, & the community.   :) "


==
> For further clarification please post to an appropriate list or contact a
> list admin directly.

As outlined by the _facts_ and reasoning above, I believe the facts
compell the conclusion that _this list_ is the appropriate list for my
current question to be posted to.

==
And, seriously, thanks again, Andrew, for your volunteering effort for
the BALUG community.  :)

Also, please excuse any trifiling errors in the above, - it's late, I'm
trying to do my best, but I'm very tired.  I do think this matter is
important to the proper functioning of BALUG, hence my effort on this
matter now.