Geoff, if you and/or anyone else is committed to nettime as a project,
however you see it, then you might consider starting a new list (or
whatever) dedicated to that project and recruiting people to contribute.
An effort like that would face staggering obstacles, I think. Those
obstacles are one way to measure the value of this list — basically,
how much would it cost to recreate it? Those costs wouldn't be
financial, though, they'd be human. What would it take to rebuild the
messy mix of interests — optimism, generosity, sentimentality, habit,
desperation at the lack of alternatives — that make people stick to
this list? I don't know how anyone would do it, but I think it'd take
superhuman effort.
A more practical way of measuring the list's value is to look at its
actual traffic. Sure, times have changed from the 'silver age' of the
mid/late '90s, and we need to adjust our expectations, but even so...
The active contributors have dwindled to a few dozen, the range of
subjects has become narrow and predictable, discussions quickly fall
into ruts, and too much of it sounds like retirees moaning about the
state of the world. It's great that some people can look past those
faults and see a silver lining. But even if 50 different people suddenly
started to sing the list's praises, that'd be a paltry 1% of the
subscriber base. If we're serious about trying to understand the list's
value, it's hard to ignore the fact that well over 99% of the people who
are supposedly loyal to are silent.
The disparity between these two ways of evaluating nettime is sharp. To
me, it suggests that the list is running on fumes — and that if it
continues on its present course, it'll burn up whatever reputation it
has left. I'd much rather shut it down on a decent note than let it
dodder along until its pathetic state becomes undeniable. And if anyone
is tempted to think, "Wait, who are *you* to decide for all of us?" my
answer is simple: I'm one of two people who've shepherded this list for
the last twenty-one years. The number of mailing lists that have lasted
that long is vanishingly small. It doesn't happen by magic, it happens
in large part because a list is well-maintained. Until we switched the
list to non-moderated status two years ago, *every single message* was
approved by hand in a terminal using mutt and vim. And not just
approved, but often delayed to modulate the pace of the conversation,
compiled into digests with custom names, held when someone sent a second
copy to fix a typo, and tons of other things. This list is some
seriously bespoke shit. So, if you value this list, then part of what
you value is our judgment. And our judgment now is that it's time to
think very seriously about shutting it down AND MAYBE ALSO trying
something new.
But we haven't decided that we *will* shut it down — we announced that
we're thinking about it and asking for new ideas. Protesting that the
list is still worth it isn't a new idea: it doesn't address the list's
serious shortcomings (notably it's catastrophic gender imbalance), it
doesn't propose ways to make it more relevant, and it doesn't offer any
prospects for attracting new voices / forms / focuses. And if the list
can't adapt, then it's just another zombie cultural project lumbering
along. I think there's much more value to be found in my initial
challenge — encouraging you or anyone else to actively start your own
— than in passively hoping that some interesting discussions might
flare up every once in a while. If people really rely on this list, then
its absence will be a constant reminder of what's needed — whereas its
ongoing presence mainly means a few more mails to skim.
The labor involved in running this list is trivial — that's not the
issue. Felix and I could do it for another twenty years if there was
reason to be optimistic. We're interested in the future, not more of the
past.
Cheers,
Ted
On 3 Sep 2019, at 22:49, Geoffrey Goodell wrote:
Hi Felix,
I am confused about the source and scope of the perceived threat that
has led
to the perception of such urgency to shut down the list. I must ask
what it is
about the current dynamics that the erstwhile leaders find so
threatening.
Perhaps it is because I have not been around Nettime back in the
twentieth
century, but I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, I like it as it
is.
If the maintainer of the mailing list server would like to quit for
whatever
reason, then I for one would be happy to take up the task. I'm sure
I'm not
alone. In fact, I'd run a mailing list for the oldster-tribe just as
readily
as I'd run a mailing list for the youngster-tribe. I don't have a
horse in
this race, just bewilderment about what people find so objectionable.
Yours in confusion --
Geoff
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:51:08AM +0200, Felix Stalder wrote:
I would try to reverse the question. Not what are the costs (which
are
hard to calculate anyway), but what are the benefits. And if they
approach zero, then it's time to stop in a decent way (and archive
the
list for good). There is no use to do useless stuff. There is enough
of
that on the world.
For me, the benefits have decreased, but are they close enough to
zero?
What could be done to increase them? What would constitute a benefit,
and to whom?
Felix
On 02.09.19 22:28, Morlock Elloi wrote:
If the cost of running the list was exactly zero (let's not delve
into
details at this point), would you still kill it?
If yes, then we have an interesting case of potlatch, without
bonfire.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
# @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
