On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:20:51 +0000, "Byron Jeff" said: > Can you clarify your proposal? I get from the above that two things are > wrong: > > 1. Public trashing of individual posters. > 2. Non PIC and non electrical/electronic engineering posts in PIC/EE > > Now a couple of questions: > > 1. Are you planning on censoring posts/topics in OT? The above discussion > makes it seem so. > > 2. How exactly do you propose to curtail the public trashing of > individuals > on the list. Censorship? Moderation? Kicking offenders off the list? > > The problem I see is that a mailing list isn't like a web forum where > moderators can move and/or delete offending posts. The options seem to be > more limited than that. > > Any clarifications on these issues would be helpful. Hi Byron, Thanks for writing. It's not always possible to sum up ones feelings in an easily communicated way. I think the spirit of the piclist needs to be reaffirmed and the members unite toward that goal. When things get to the point of moderation or censoring by admins it has gone too far, and I don't think I could continue if the piclist got less fun. Notice I said "by admins". I think people need to self-moderate and self-censor to maintain the quality and the technical nature of the piclist. How to enforce it? I think offlist emails by admins work quite well. Certainly things evolve over time. I've been on the piclist for over ten years. In that time the internet has changed - news aggregation, blogs, and the Microchip forum to mention a few. But the cool thing about the piclist was that it has been about PICs and the things you'd hook up to them. I don't see why that should change. The piclist, if anything, should stick to what it does best rather than try to be a list for everything. I don't see "number of subscribers" or "number of messages" as being a good metric for quality. Ten years ago there were fewer tags. I am not in favor of adding more tags. I am in favor of posting when you have a question, an answer or have done something you want to share. I have no objection to posts with links to great technical resources when it's relevant(Jinx linking to the site that showed the impedance of the TL431 is a good example). But the membership of the piclist has changed, too. If there are 2000 people happy with the way things are, and want more, clearly I'm in trouble. This is where Russell and I really disagree. I think he should have a blog. I don't think he should have a topic category on the piclist. If that happens, I'm out of here, there's nothing I can do because I am absolutely against having politics, evolution, metaphysics and the like on the piclist no matter what tag it bears. This isn't a supermarket, this is a niche market. We don't need a category for global warming. There are already entire sites for those discussions, here's one that Russell already contributes to: http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/04/22/the-sincerest-form-of-flat-earthery/ Where do I go from here? I'm volunteering to help take the piclist back in time ten years. But if the owner of the piclist doesn't want that, I can't be of much use. Hey, who is the owner of the piclist anyway? So much for a finishing on positive note :( Best regards, Bob -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist