On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 09:07:17AM +0200, Wouter van Ooijen wrote:
> > [add WOT] No. No way.
> > But, regardless, I third your motion and amend it and second and pass 
> > the amendment that we also add TECH aswell.
> > All those in favour say "aye"
> > All James's against say "naye".
> > The nayes have it.
> 
> I don't see a difference between OT and WOT. Something is on-topic or
> not, if not it can't be 'more notter' than any other topic.

Olin's argument was that some PIC/Engineering posts are mislabled as OT.
By having [WOT] or [NT] ("Non Tech" as I called it), then there would be
a separation between Tech stuff and Non Tech Stuff. In short while someone
may post a borderline EE/OT post in OT, no one would post a borderline post
in NT. Especially someone new to the list.

> But changing EE to Everything Engineering seems like a perfect and
> practical solution to me.

At the end of the day it's only a nomenclature change. EE to Everything 
Engineering only make sense to those who have participated in the list
discussion. To anyone walking it it'll still be Electrical Engineering.
And OT is well established as Off Topic.

So OT and EE are too well established to arbitarily change. Adding a new
channel with no preset semantic context means that the likelyhood of a
mislabled post goes down immensely.

Olin had two points: Some mislabled posts end up in OT and...

> And I do support the policy that politics and religion should not be on
> the list, not even as OT or WOT. 

which is all over the spectrum from what I read. Some don't want it. Some
tolerate it. Some find it interesting. I'm pretty sure Russell is in a
singular catgory. There's no consensus. Personally I have seen some 
thoughtful discussions that would not have been created anywhere else.

But for non-digest readers it should be a moot point as if it's not being
mailed to you, then it doesn't exist. So getting back to the original point
simply by separating real OT stuff into another category, anyone who isn't
interested can unsubscribe from it. In fact if possible when one registers
one should be unsubscribed by default and have to opt into that channel.
It solves Olin's original request without having to censor Russell or anyone
else.

The digest is a separate issue. But the technology to "channelize" the
digest is on the table.

My feeling is that since there is no consensus from the membership that we
bring technology to bear so that everyone gets what they wants.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist