Jonathan
Have you not received the last few posts regarding the future of the MF list?
It seems bizarre to me that on the one hand we're offering to completely overhaul everything to do with the
MF list - format, moderation, rules, THE LOT (including possible uses for other lists that exist) - whilst on
the other hand you seem to be saying that the old format is not to be changed but will continue as is.
I really am very confused. If you are too then check the current MF archives to see if there are items
missing from your received posts.
To everyone else:
The format of the moq_focus list DOES NOT have to stay the same as in the past. We are currently trying
to find some sort of format which offers something different from the moq_discuss list and at the same
time will provide something of value to all involved. We're also trying to bring members into the discussion
so that the list reflects the wishes of the members involved. If you want to have a say then do so.
Horse
On 6 Jan 2002 at 17:57, Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> Hi Horse, Roger and all,
>
> HORSE
> <<<<It seems to me that a possible good use of moq_focus would be to
> move the moq_discuss summaries here. Most agree that MD
> is a lot more dynamic than MF but I think that the summaries may get a
> bit lost in the other discussions. Once there has been an
> amount of sorting out of the summary of an MD discussion the result
> could be moved to a FAQ section of the site.
>
> Comments?>>>>
>
> I'd like to see the summaries ultimately end up as nicely presented
> articles on the web site.
> Roger's work on the "Overdoing the dynamic" thread is most welcome, but
> I think it is still under discussion, and still at the draft stage .
> As the discussion dies out and people make some final comments, I hope
> Roger will revise the summary and then we can pretty it up and upload it
> for posterity.
>
> I still don't see a role for a separate MF mailing list. I think that
> the idea of working up a digest/summary of a discussion that has already
> happened works better than trying to force a focussed discussion by
> prior decree. Furthermore, the original idea of having MF controlled by
> a "moderator" smacks of censorship. What Roger has been doing is to be
> first a discussion leader and then an editor. I think the final result
> is superior. Let's see if this new pattern that has now evolved serves
> us well for future discussions.
>
> (In future I hope to have time to share the work involved).
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:33 BST