I assume you've discovered the word is usually spelled administrivia.
It's fun making up words. My latest is bibliopotheosis
On May 29, 2014, at 10:23 AM, Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu wrote:
* Apparently “administratativia” is a word of my own design because a search
of it in Google
Mine is bibliounitarian -- for those who believe in a single record
model for bibliographic data, as opposed to biblioquatritarians
(FRBR-ites) or biblioduotarians (Bibframers).
kc
On 6/9/14, 3:30 PM, Eric Hellman wrote:
I assume you've discovered the word is usually spelled administrivia.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Eric Hellman e...@hellman.net wrote:
I assume you've discovered the word is usually spelled administrivia.
It's fun making up words. My latest is bibliopotheosis
It's also handy when the OED adds them too - less need to update local
spell check files on new
A reminder.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Eric Lease Morgan emor...@nd.edu
Date: May 29, 2014 at 9:23:31 AM CDT
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
Reply-To: Code for Libraries CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
This is some mailing list
This is some mailing list administratativia.*
Buried deep in the dark (unindexed by Google) Web is a paragraph describing the
purpose of the Code4Lib mailing list:
The purpose of the Code4Lib mailing is to provide a forum for
discussing the use of computers in libraries, usually in the form
This is a tiny bit of mailing list administratativia:
1) there are about 1,500 hundred of us
2) we are from all over the world
3) the largest group is from gmail.com
4) the mailing list is configured to stop
processing after 50 message are sent in one day
5) 50 messages were sent
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Doran, Michael D do...@uta.edu wrote:
Can that limit threshold be raised? If so, are there reasons why it should
not be raised?
Is it to throttle spam or something? 50 seems rather low, and it's
rather depressing to have a lively discussion throttled like
I believe the software documentation suggests a limit to put a stop to mail
loops.
Peter
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Doran, Michael D do...@uta.edu wrote:
Can that limit threshold be raised? If so, are there reasons why it
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
Is it to throttle spam or something? 50 seems rather low, and it's
rather depressing to have a lively discussion throttled like that. Not
Pretty sure it wasn't depressing to the vast majority of the listserv
audience. That was/is a discussion that benefited
+1 to the this discussion is really depressing me camp.
On Oct 27, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
Alexander Johannesen wrote:
Is it to throttle spam or something? 50 seems rather low, and it's
rather depressing to have a lively discussion throttled like that.
Not
I'd like to once again point out the 50-message limit, and the fact
that this thread is rapidly chewing through that 50.
Surely there are some code or lib topics folks want to discuss.
-Mike
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:53 AM, Jonathan Rochkind rochk...@jhu.edu wrote:
Pretty sure it wasn't depressing to the vast majority of the listserv
audience. That was/is a discussion that benefited from a timeout period,
like you give the pre-schoolers.
Given we're adults, and not in pre-school,
FWIW, the daily-threshold limit on a LISTSERV(tm) list can easily be
set to any value by the listowner; it can also be manually overridden by
the owner in specific cases with a release command (which retains the
limit but allows continued distribution on the day the limit is reached).
Using the
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Chris Fitzpatrick cf...@stanford.edu wrote:
+1 to the this discussion is really depressing me camp.
Ok, ok, I get the message. This is no place to voice strong opinions
about bad library tech, and my (different, but not bad) language nor
stance (contrarian,
I vote for changing the limit threshold to
PI * (eventual length of this meta-thread).
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Doran, Michael D do...@uta.edu wrote:
Can that limit threshold be raised? If so, are there reasons why it
I think the constraint is that it has to be a rational number.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list
.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
I vote for changing the limit threshold to
PI
for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
I vote for changing the limit threshold to
PI * (eventual length of this meta-thread
-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of
Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
I vote for changing the limit threshold to
PI * (eventual length
: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
I vote for changing the limit threshold to
PI * (eventual length of this meta-thread).
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Alexander Johannesen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010
to be a rational number.
-Original Message-
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:code4...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf
Of
Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
I vote for changing
...@listserv.nd.edu] On Behalf Of Eric
Hellman
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:58 PM
To: CODE4LIB@LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] mailing list administratativia
I vote for changing the limit threshold to
PI * (eventual length of this meta-thread).
On Oct 27, 2010, at 3
Here is a bit of Code4Lib mailing list administratativia.
First of all, our membership is now over a thousand people. While the
NGC4Lib mailing list has more subscribers, the Code4Lib mailing lists
grows at a steady and constant rate. The growth of the NGC4Lib list
has s l o o o w e d
This is a bit of mailing list administratativia.
Specifically, there was a rogue mail server in France that seems to
have been redirecting mail back to our list. This was causing many
duplicate postings. Weird. The address our postings were being sent to
has been removed from the subscription
I am not ignoring y'all, really, and here is some mailing list
administratativia.
There are many versions of the archives. Think, Lot's of copies keep
stuff safe. The one-stop-shop interface to just about everything
where you can change your subscription options, even though it is
painfully s l
25 matches
Mail list logo
