On 13/03/12 16:37, Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Toby Corkindale<toby.corkindale@strategicdata.com.au> wrote:
Would you still take issue with that approach? I don't want to cause grief with the committee, but since there's a slight demand for the list and the committee has already refused their option to create it, I figure it can't hurt to run an independent one.
Google Groups tends to force Gmail accounts on users which is a good incentive to not use any lists based on that service.
What happens if you email luv-tech+subscribe@googlegroups.com from a non-gmail account?
That combined with the small demand makes it likely that you won't get a critical mass of subscribers unles something goes wrong with the main LUV lists.
I suspect that will be true, but sometimes the brief life can inspire wider discussion.. or maybe luck will hold and the critical mass will be reached.
It seems that a better option would be to get luv-talk adjusted to better suit your desires. But given that we expelled one member due to racism on luv- talk, a religious extremist went quiet, and one guy who had been anti-social started doing so on luv-main instead it doesn't seem like you will get much unwanted discussion on luv-talk that doesn't happen on luv-main.
Maybe, maybe not.. Restricting conversation to technology is, I think, less likely to bring about unpleasant opinions; and if people do stray, one can moderate those users. I don't mind that people want to have all sorts of, uh, wide-ranging and contentious discussions on luv-talk. I don't want to censor those, even if I disagree strongly with some opinions held. However I'd like to have a "safe" mailing list that sticks to the topics I am interested in, and which is far less likely to deliver questionable messages to my work email account :P -Toby