Jay - couple of questions, and a suggestion. If I understand your idea correctly, it limits the number of postings to the top of the hierarchy. How would ideas generated in the larger lists filter back up? It looks to me like some person with the ability to post to the lists at the top would have to receive all the messages from the largest list, and report back to the top for this to happen. A similar idea has developed with the main IETF list. There is a completely open list, and a version that is filtered by a volunteer. You may subscribe to either list, depending on your preferences. Perhaps a something like that idea with a more formal structure could work to let more people feel comfortable participating. As an example - 1) Fully open list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) Lightly filtered version of same list - [EMAIL PROTECTED] a) No crossposts accepted b) Limited number of posts per day per subscriber 3) Moderated version - [EMAIL PROTECTED] a) Both rules from number 2, plus b) A moderator with the ability to kill threads that have degenerated into flames, etc. Posts to any of the lists go to the main babble list, and then are reflected to all three groups of subscribers, and filtered accordingly. You would subscribe to the version that matched your preferences for receiving mail. The nice thing about this general idea is that it can be done with any list, even IFWP, just requires someone to take on responsibility for creating the filtered version. David Schutt > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jay > Fenello > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 10:11 PM > To: IFWP Discussion List > Cc: IFWP Discussion List > Subject: [ifwp] A New Paradigm (was: What is this? Why are we surprised > with it?) > > <huge honking snip> > > > > >So, rather than a moderated list approach, I suggest a > >construct that features lists within lists. For example: > > - Decisions Maker's List (10 members) > > - Advisor's List (30 members) > > - Open List (100s of members) > > > >Each list would only accept postings from its members, but > >postings to each list would be propagated to the list immediately > >below it (or all lists below it). This ensures an open process, it > > >gives everyone a chance to comment, and it allows work to get done. > > > This is basically a list within a list approach: > > +----------------------------+ > | +------------------------+ | > | | +--------------------+ | | > | | | Decision Maker's | | | > | | | List | | | > | | +--------------------+ | | > | | Advisor's List | | > | +------------------------+ | > | Open List | > +----------------------------+ > > It allows everyone to participate, it allows the > discussions on the smaller lists to be viewed and > commented on by the larger lists, and it allows > the best ideas to "filter" up to the decision > maker's. > > In actuality, it is an attempt to formalize the > informal process that occurs today, while adding > a dimension of openness that is currently not > available. > > Bottom line, solving this problem is part of > the process of creating a new tradition of self > governance. > > Comments and suggestions welcome. > __________________________________________________ To receive the digest version instead, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___END____________________________________________
