>>Anthony: How about going to NNTP?
>Mark: No thanks.
Adrian: I'm with you on this.
>If you want threading, gateway this list to that one on NNTP.
Adrian: NNTP threading isn't all it's cracked up to be. We often change
the topic of the conversation and should at that point change the
subject, NNTP would still list it as the same disucssion.
>NNTP is spam rich, and majordomo isn't nearly as bad. And, NNTP isn't
>"modern." If we were to go to a different interface, I'd want to go into
>something NEW and BETTER. (hint: http://www.forumsamerica.com/Macintosh/)
>Personally, I love what interaction.in-progress.com can do. I crave a chat
>with A.I.
Adrian: I'd like to see much more done with the web site, but the mailing
list is the place to discuss things. (though topics like the political
discussion might be good to have on a discussion board).
>Furthermore the type of interactions that occur on a mailing list generally
>don't make it to the news groups. More, "yea, right" and "trite" comments
>there. Email allows for better, in-depth discussions, IMHO. Each has its
>purpose, but we need to be drilling down for deeper, richer content
>discussions.
Adrian: yes. I believe we need to look at ways to do this best and
experiment with different approaches. For this reason an NNTP server
will be set up on the Linux box and a test forum will be set up there.
>That alternative server isn't a "production" one -- and I'd hate to take
>these discussions anywhere that wasn't a rock-solid host for months on end
>- -- and we've got that here now. That server seems to me to be a
>developmental box. It is great to have those resources for development --
>but things get too goofy when doing double duties.
Adrian: I wouldn't be worried about the stability of the Linux box once
we get it set up. Linux is very stable and has better protected memory
than Mac or Windows by a long way.
>I seen no problem nor worries about bounces, subscriptions, and admins
>getting ticked off here. I think those are inflated assumptions that are NOT
>real. The grass isn't greener there, IMHO.
Adrian: I've had problems with my subscription to the list and Scott has
been very helpful with these. This was a side issue that I mentioned and
unfortunately it seems to have become a big thing which it shouldn't have.
>As for the scaleable issue -- I asked MONTHS ago for a new "License" list to
>be created. To create a new list is sorta easy on the box such as the one we
>are now being hosted. The system admin could do it in 20 minutes, max. But,
>there wasn't a "demand" by the users to such a service. We have far more
>capacity on the box and bandwidth this is sitting on. We could expand 1,000
>fold and still be safe here I'm going to assume (for the sake of an
>illustration).
Adrian: yes, mailing lists are capable of handling the same number of
messages as a news server - the protocols are very similar.
>BTW, I'd still like to make more specialized lists here.
Adrian: In time I'm sure we will, but the group is still small and things
like licencing need to be decided by everyone so that everyone is happy
with it.
>I don't fire up my newsreader, but I ALWAYS get email.
Adrian: Yes, moving to NNTP would make the discussion harder to access
for most people (email is *far* more popular than news).
>> I think this would be a _big_ improvement. And certainly worth the effort
>> required to move any archives.
>
>Doubtful. We should improve the FAQs, the scope of the discussions, the
>numbers of Voters, --- the things that matter.
Adrian: Agreed. I am working on writing a Log now and a FAQ will soon
follow.
>Go for it. Set it up -- play with it. Take a few discussion threads over
>there. But, don't mess with the lifeblood of the organizational forum.
Adrian: That's exactly what will be done.
--------
>Alain: >>Adrian: How about going to NNTP?
Adrian: I didn't say that, that was Anthony. I'm against going to NNTP,
but am willing to try it out.
>> Mark: And NNTP isn't "modern.". If we were to
>> go to a different interface, I'd want to go into
>> something NEW and BETTER.
>
>Alain: Sounds like a commendable suggestion.
Adrian: What would people like to see. We can probably do it.
>Mark: (hint: http://www.forumsamerica.com/Macintosh/)
> Personally, I love what interaction.in-progress.com
> can do. I crave a chat with A.I.
Adrian: What is it about this site that you like Mark?
>Alain: The chats that I have visited were OK, I guess,
>but they usually end up being superficial
>conversations on mundane subjects. E-mail gives you
>more time to ponder on what others write, and it
>allows you enough time and continuity to compose your
>responses thought-fully. And, of course, there is the
>synchronous versus asynchronous tradeoff too (e.g. you
>are temporally constrained with chats)
Adrian: Yes, chat isn't a plausible replacement for the list, but it will
be useful for small groups working on a project together like me and
Anthony when we are configuring the server. We will undoubtebly be using
"talk" to communicate as we work and make sure we know what the other is
doing.
>> Mark: I think those are inflated assumptions
>> that are NOT real.
>
>Alain: Adrian is not a twit, Mark. If he says that he
>has had such problems, then it is surely true.
Adrian: Let drop this issue, I did have problems which still remain
unsolved to some degree but Scott was very helpful and I am managing to
receive the list messages so there's no real problem. The problems that
did occur could and would occur on our server too.
>> Mark: The grass isn't greener there, IMHO.
>
>Alain: I have written this before but it bears recall
>that it would be better (ultimately) to be completely
>self-sufficient. Scott is still with us, now, but will
>his commitment to hosting our mail waiver when the GUI
>is completed and we focus our efforts on a free app
>that will compete with MetaCard for the hearts and
>minds of all those disenfranchised HyperCard fanatics?
>You gotta like the fact that Scott/MetaCard is
>generously helping us, but it is nevertheless somewhat
>perplexing. Wouldn't you say?
Adrian: Yes, we can't remain dependant on MetaCard for our major
communication medium. This list was originally a temporary measure until
we got our server set up again. Soon we will have a server set up to
host the mailing list again and so we should use it.
>Alain: >>Adrian: I think this would be a _big_ improvement.
>>>And certainly worth the effort required
>>>to move any archives.
Adrian: Again, it was Anthony that said this.
>Alain: Not right away, Adrian. Mark makes some good
>points when he suggests that we make things
>bullet-proof on the Linux machine before using it for
>critical group functions. We will setup some mail
>lists on the Linux box, that's for sure. The first one
>will probably be a list dedicated to the subject of
>the Linux box.
Adrian: Certainly we will make sure the Linux box is bullet proof before
moving anything there. This discussion originated from asking what
services we should configure on the Linux box. We will now be
configuring majordomo, NNTP, CVS, talk and a few other things.
>> Mark: Doubtful. We should improve the FAQs,
>> the scope of the discussions, the numbers of
>> Voters, --- the things that matter.
>
>Alain: I agree that we should improve what you mention
>above. Too much attention and importance is accorded
>to the mailing list. There is so much more we could do
>with our web-based collaboration infrastructure
>(http). I predict, though, that using any means
>besides e-mail will be an uphill battle.
Adrian: Yes, my recent work with php3 will hopefully result in some new
features being added to our web site system.
>> Mark: Go for it. Set it up -- play with it.
>> Take a few discussion threads over there.
>> But, don't mess with the lifeblood of the
>> organizational forum.
>
>Alain: This would indeed be the safest option, for now.
Adrian: And it is the plan we will be following.
