From: Robin Hanson (hanson@hss.caltech.edu)
Date: Mon Sep 30 1996 - 22:36:48 MDT
"Kathryn Aegis" writes:
>I have resided on a list-within-list structure, but the inner list
>was by invitation only and required clearance by several inner list
>members. The two lists dealt with a human rights issue, and the outer
>list occupied the harassers while the real work was conducted on the
>inner list, which could not be read by the outer list.
>Eventually many persons on the inner list unsubbed from the outer
>list, considering it a distraction.
Having the inner list not openly readable is different from my
proposal. But you haven't mentioned the most important thing - did
the inner list work well for insiders? If so, sounds like a success
story.
Crosby_M writes:
>The idea is that there would be a second list available where the
>participants in a particular thread, or series of related threads, could
>regularly post a summary of what their thread had been discussing.
I'm not sure you'll get people to put in this effort, but I have no
objection to your trying it.
QueeneMUSE@aol.com writes:
>who are respected as "elders" in the list, could come up with some sort of
>system where they *star* or flag items which they find particularly
>valuable... giving a guideline to what is expected, also keeping it positive
What is the difference between this and a moderated "best of" list?
I don't see how it is any less objectionable on elitism grounds.
Robin D. Hanson hanson@hss.caltech.edu http://hss.caltech.edu/~hanson/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:46 MST