[Drake] Replies: To the sender or to the list?

[Floyd Davidson]

Jim Lowman <jmlowman@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>FWIW, there are a couple of schools of thought on this issue.
>Unfortunately, I have yet to hear a clear consensus to support
>either side's point of view.  A dozen or so comments, at most,
>from either side does not constitute a statistical majority on
>a list of more than 500 members; at least, not a compelling
>reason to change the status quo.

I doubt that a consensus of opinion would necessarily lead to
the correct decision.  *Studied* opinions from individuals who
have an understanding of the significance might be much more
useful.

That means an open discussion, on the mailing list.

>One argument is that the purpose of a mailing list is to
>disseminate information; therefore, all replies should be
>directed to the list.

That is correct, but if and only if that is indeed the purpose
of the mailing list.  (And if it is, I would think that pretty
much ends the question of what should be done too!)

>The counter to that argument is that sending all replies to the
>list often clutters it with exchanges that should be made on a
>one-to-one basis.

We must accept that mistakes will be made.

  1) If replies are directed to the list most certainly
     there will be a percentage of posts that should not
     have been sent to the list.
or

  2) If replies are not sent to the list there will be
     a percentage of posts that should have gone to the
     list but didn't.  

Pick your evil.  It is not reasonable to attempt to find
perfection because it is not going to exist in either case.

The question goes back to what is the purpose of the mailing
list, and at this point one has to ask if the percentage of what
should have been private email messages that go to the list
would be enough to actually diminish the value of the list and
if so to what degree; or would the percentage of private email
messages with useful information that do not go to the list
be more detrimental?

To me, the answer is obvious: missing useful information is not
an error that can be made up for in any way.  On the other hand,
a little extra baggage along with that information is
essentially harmless because in fact *most* of the useful
information is only useful to a percentage (which is different
for each bit of information) of the audience.

In other words, perhaps every valid message is ignored by maybe
50 to 99 percent of the readers anyway because it does not apply
to them, so how much could adding a few messages that are
ignored by 100% of the users actually harm the list's value as a
whole?

I submit that it would not even be noticed.

>The practical side (and this comes from a few years of
>administering more than 20 lists, each with its own
>"personality") is that the Internet culture has changed with
>the opportunity for more of us to have access to this vast
>information resource.  Charitably put, some members with many
>years of experience as a ham have relatively little experience
>with the Internet; some members are new to both realms.
>
>The current arrangement of the drake@mailman.qth.net is that
>replies are directed to the *individual* and not to the list.
>I can change that in a few minutes but, before taking that
>step, I would want to hear the following:
>
>-- a vote, possibly accompanied by supporting comments, as to
>which configuration the list should be in, with a *significant*
>number of the list membership weighing in, *and*

I believe you were correct in assuming above that charity would
suggest there isn't enough expertise reflected in a vote of
people without the experience to be good judges of the issues.

>-- if the majority want the replies to go to the list, a
>commitment to ensure that *only* replies that need to go to
>everyone, go to the list.  This means that, when replying to a
>message, the sender check the "To:" section of the header to be
>sure where his message is going.

If we expect that to be either a perfect fit, or that the error
rate will be so high as to be significantly detrimental to the
purpose of the list, then we cannot expect it to work, because
humans are human and in fact there *are* going to be messages
sent to the mailing list that should not be.

I personally question the concept that it is going to be a
significant impairment...  I think it will be mildly annoying at
worst.  I also think that if we want perfection the *only* way
to achieve it is to individually verify and then forward to the
list each and every article (which of course you as the
moderator most likely would not want to have to do).

>For example, equipment is listed as wanted, for sale or trade
>frequently here.  In this case, replies to the *sender* would
>be appropriate, as those parties (the other 500+ of us) not
>involved in the transaction are not interested in the
>dealmaking or the outcome.

True, but are we harmed in any great way if a few, or even if
many, mistakes are made?  I can imagine a kindly reminder being
necessary now and then to keep it from appearing to be the norm.
But even that could be automated (e.g., sent once a week or once
a month).

>As a suggestion, please send responses directly to me, in
>consideration of those for whom this is not an issue.  I'll be
>happy to post a summary to the list.

With all due respect, it is an issue for the entire list, not
just for you and the few of us that choose to be vocal about it.
That is particularly true if you were to go ahead with any vote
or other attempt at forming a consensus.  It would be bad enough
to have a consensus of people who don't have experience, but
much worse if they also don't get to read opinions from those
with experience.

It is generally conceded on Usenet, and I do not see any
difference for a mailing list, that the subject of topicality is
always on topic in any newsgroup (or in this case mailing list).

With that I'll point out that I've been using the Internet,
Usenet, and mailing lists, since the late 80's (a bit over 15
years).  I'm not interested in a mailing list that is nothing
more than a well moderated swap and sell list, and therefore
anything that potentially reduces the amount of useful
information about Drake equipment which is passed on this list
is, in my opinion, a distinct negative.  I *can* see allowing a
sale completed right before my eyes now and then, but I *can't*
see a thing if an informative message is sent via private email
and never shows up on the list.

  Floyd, KL7GPS

>73 de Jim - AD6CW
>List Administrator
>
>jeffdrau wrote:
>> 
>> On questions that might be of interest to other list
>> members, would it
>> be a good idea to "reply to all" so everyone can benefit
>> from the exchange?
>> Just a thought.


-- 
Floyd L. Davidson           <http://web.newsguy.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik "Place where people hunt snowy owls"     (Barrow, Alaska)