@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996
Sender: Brennon Martin <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cr> CRISIS in cyber-rights
Hi,
Not having been in on the formation of cyber-rights, I'm not sure
what _exactly_ the mission is/was/will be. I am also uncertain as to what
was meant by the desire not to create another discussion group but rather
a working group. What is clear, however, is that the structure of the
"discussions" that have taken place is stifling to discourse -- at least
it is to me. Let me explain.
By collecting all the daily responses and grouping them into one
large post, the moderators of the discussion seem to be exercising too
much editorial control over the discussion. I find it difficult to
follow threads and annoying to try to reply to a particular discussion
buried deep in the day's tidbits. I don't have a problem with screening
posts; spamming has been noticably (and delightfully) absent from this
list. I just don't find the current format one in which I feel my
contributions are very important.
Perhaps the moderators have considered these points and decided
against them. If so, maybe I'm just on the wrong list.
Brennon M. Martin
School of Communications, Box 353740
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195-3740
206.543.2660
•••@••.•••
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Moderator response:
Brennon,
Thanks for your feedback. As you can see, I'm trying the "one
posting per submission" policy. Anyone else have feedback on this?
As for what is meant by "not another discussion group": the idea is
to be a group collaborating toward a goal, which is different than simply a
group chatting about something.
-rkm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
