Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Nov 24, 1998 at 02:55:29PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> At 18:35 23/11/98 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> 
> >(BTW, these lists have got me bamboozled. This is the first message I've
> >gotten on any of them
> >for quite a while, except for kent's messages about the meeting notes.
> >Anyway, wouldn't it be better to post to the "participants" list? There,
> >at least, there's some chance of catching a few people who were at the
> >meeting. This "discuss" list hasn't kicked off at all, it seems to me.)
> > 
> Michael and all,
> 
> I am surprised to hear you make such a proposal just after lauding the
> openness of the DNSO.
> Are you suggesting that the "participants" are not bothering to follow the
> open list and congregate only on the closed "participants" list?

Actually, both lists are rather quiet.

[...]

> If there is anything of general interest said on the "participants" list ,
> it should be posted to the open list as well.

Agreed.

> Better still, the two lists can be one.

The distinction between the participants list and the discuss list 
comes up, for example, when I posted the first draft of the meeting 
notes for corrections.

> In an Internet world, the distinction in physical and other "participants"
> is artificial. 

Not totally, as the above example illustrates.  However, I agree 
that the number of such cases is small.

kent

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html