[Talk-us] Using prefixes for regional mail list topics

[Randy]

Richard Welty wrote:

>On 12/3/09 12:50 AM, Randy wrote:
>>I'm reposting this, as it was rather stupid to post it under a
>>San Fransico/Bay topic that was only remotely related (i.e. being 
>>regional).
>>
>>
>>>This may very well already be the defacto standard, but if not, might I
>>>suggest that we establish a best practice of prefixing subjects which are
>>>regionally directed with a 2-4 character region prefix followed by a 
>>>colon?
>>>
>>>NY: has already been used.
>>>other states also would be by postal code abbreviation
>having spontaneously started using NY: (the convention may predate me,
>but if so i've
>not seen it previously), i'm of course inclined to support this.
>
>but i suggest that prefixes that aren't state postal codes but come into
>common use should go
>on a wiki page somewhere.
>
>richard

I think that's a good idea.

We could have a US wiki page, which included a section on talk-us subject 
prefixes, or we could have a talk-us wiki page, strictly for that purpose.

However, I do see a difficulty. The wiki page would need to be something 
that people would be aware of and refer to. I'm not sure how that would be 
done, unless a message was posted monthly, for example. If there's an easy 
way around the problem, then I'd say "Go for it."

If not, then possibly just common usage, and the hope that those in a 
particular region would be aware of any precedent set for the prefix of 
that region will be adequate. After all, they are the ones who really need 
to be aware of it. The rest of us will rarely be initiating communications 
for a region other than our own, and can check a message to see what 
region it's talking about, if we aren't sure from the prefix.

At any rate, I think using a prefix scheme, whether documented elsewhere 
or not, would make it less likely to need a regional talk list until a 
very large part of the total communications over a significant time is for 
a particular region. The prefix would make it much easier to assess that, 
as well.

That's why I threw out the suggestion. As with all OSM proposals, folks 
can choose to use it or not. I think those who do will profit from it, 
though.

'Nuff said.

-- 
Randy