[Peace-discuss] peace vs. peace-discuss, mmm, discussion

[Stuart Levy]

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 11:38:58PM -0500, Ya'aqov Ziso wrote:
> *Stuart, *
> *
> *
> *If JFP want me to wade through their arguments for a rally, there need to
> be a vehicle where I can proportionally (as far as number of
> participant-addressees) respond with my comments. Otherwise it would pure
> demagogy.  *

If you want to announce your own rally/meeting/whatever, on your own terms,
by all means go ahead and do that.   That's appropriate for peace.

If you want to criticize someone else's, please do it on peace-discuss
(or anywhere else you like, but please not on the peace list).

In short: peace-discuss is *exactly* the vehicle you are looking for.
If you're not on that list any more, please rejoin it!  There really is a lot
of interesting material passed around.  And at times there are discussions.

Though there's no guarantee that any particular issue will get discussed, even
if it's one that interests you -- that depends on the interests of the other people
in the group, and whether they feel they have anything to add to the discussion,
and what not.


Separating announcement-only communication channels from discussion channels
is a common form of network etiquette, adopted by the lively USENET anarchy
decades ago, and maintained so as to have some means of limiting traffic
that doesn't require appointing a content censor.

> *
> *I don't appreciate the chiding in the name of eMail etiquette: you could
> have answered my question months ago. **If peace-discuss is a subset -- how
> many of the 450 of peace are in this subset?

peace-discuss has about 160 people on it at the moment.  This isn't strictly
an answer to your question, but I don't want to collate the lists together
to find out exactly how many of those are on the peace list too, which is why
I didn't answer before.  But probably most are.

If you join the lists you can check the membership.


> If the vehicle you created
> allows for someone sending a message to 450 people, and one can NOT respond
> to those very 450 people, than something needs correcting with this vehicle.

We could easily set up the peace list to *prevent* people from writing to it
by technical means, requiring all messages to be moderated, or
requiring that only a limited set of people could post messages at all.

We don't -- generally anyone who's on the list can write to everyone -- a very low bar.
Instead we depend on participants mostly following the guidelines about what's
appropriate where.  And the guidelines aren't firm -- discussions do happen on
announcement lists -- but when they go on awhile, people pop up and say,
This line of argument really should be carried on elsewhere.   That's the
kind of thing that needs to happen in anarchic settings.

> T**o resolve this, simply create that vehicle,*

peace-discuss.  Please use it.  That's what it's there for.


> *
> *Thank you, Ya'aqov**
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *

> _______________________________________________
> Peace mailing list
> Peace at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace