[Strategic] Too many lists?

[Steven Feldman]

More lists may imply less posts/list and consequently more likelihood of reading (if not relevance)

Bigger aggregated lists will tend to be unwieldy and may include more stuff that individuals aren't interested in.

Mailing lists are a horrible way to communicate but we haven't found a better solution yet.

_____________________

Steven 

On 16 Jul 2012, at 02:54, Richard Weait wrote:

> I suggest that we have too many English, general purpose lists.  I
> think that we could easily roll talk-ca@, talk-us@ and talk-au@ into
> talk@ without harming any of those communities.  None of the country
> lists have enough traffic to cause a problem by overwhelming talk@
> 
> On the other hand, I think that the three country lists harm the
> overall community by allowing Balkanization of community, tagging and
> mapping.  I think that there is too little to distinguish the
> communities to require distinct lists, and allowing the groups to
> splinter and diverge is harmful.  As an example, it is better to have
> cycle-mappers in US be aware of cycle mapping challenges in AU and CA,
> rather than to believe that a unique US tagging scheme is required.
> 
> It might also be reasonable to roll the talk-gb and talk-ie etc, lists
> back into talk@ as well, but I have no history with those lists.
> 
> In short, lists should be created based on demand, and then collapsed
> when the demand abates.  It's time to move en-talk back to talk.
> 
> Just my thoughts.  How about you?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Strategic mailing list
> Strategic at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/strategic

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/strategic/attachments/20120716/4b62390e/attachment.html>