nettime's_robots.txt on Thu, 14 Aug 2003 20:39:37 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> -ann: a too-modest proposal? [freudenheim, navas, geer, being, ___ x2] |
[since the From: for the proposal was <nettime@bbs.thing.net> rather than <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>, it wasn't clear whether responses were intended to be private or public. we asked, and a few people requested anonymity and one said 'private!' one person volunteered to moderate an -ann list, but we forgot to ask if that response should be private or public, so we left it out. -- mod (tb)] Re: <nettime> a proposal: nettime-ann "Sascha D. Freudenheim" <sascha@sascha.com> "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net> [someone] Benjamin Geer <ben@socialtools.net> [someone else] human being <human@electronetwork.org> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:11:49 -0400 From: "Sascha D. Freudenheim" <sascha@sascha.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> a proposal: nettime-ann As someone who scans - at best - 1 in 25 of these announcement messages, I'm all for taking them out, and focusing any announcements in nettime-l on those that come very directly from people, and not other systems. And if it makes life easier for our trusty and faithful moderators, then so much the better. Sascha - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: "Eduardo Navas" <eduardo@navasse.net> Subject: Re: <nettime> a proposal: nettime-ann Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:17:38 -0600 <--snip--> > > Here's our proposal according to our current thinking: > > (1) We'll continue to distribute only those announcements on nettime-l > which show evidence of actually, personally having been sent by someone > specifically to nettime. > > (2) We'll set up another list, nettime-ann, to which we'll bounce all > announcements that do not directly, intimately relate to nettime -- > as measured, mainly, by the fact that some nettimer took the time to > send them specifically to nettime-l. <--snip--> I think No.1 should be omitted all together. This is what is going to happen anyways in the future when the amount of subscribers increases, once again. Letting some announcements post on nettime-l will only stall the productivity of rhetorical postings. Focus should go into making an efficient announcement list. That is separate of nettime-l. Also, right now announcements on nettime are a bit useless as some of the events have passed by the time they make it to the digests. I do not bother reading them at times due to this frustration. I hope nettime-ann will be more up-to-date. Eduardo Navas - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:21:26 Subject: Re: <nettime> a proposal: nettime-ann From: [someone] Hello moderators, Thanks for a thoughtful email on the problem. There's something like a dozen branches of the Nettime tree at this point, right? I wonder if Nettime might be at a point where some sort of individual customization/filtering might be in order? I'd love a setup where I could do something like \> updatesub nettime-l +digest +english +[whatever] -[whatever] -announcements +us_announcements +[some]_announcements -word:[whatever] Or in a perfect world, make the subscription available via RSS so that I can use a newsreader to read it (and store it) instead of email. It's a bit of a shift, I think...it would make moderation more of a metadata creation task, and shift some of the filtering responsibilities to the subscribers. Just a thought... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Benjamin Geer <ben@socialtools.net> Subject: Re: <nettime> a proposal: nettime-ann Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:57:10 +0100 On Tuesday 12 August 2003 14:01, nettime's_mod_squad wrote: > (1) We'll continue to distribute only those announcements on nettime-l > which show evidence of actually, personally having been sent by someone > specifically to nettime. > > (2) We'll set up another list, nettime-ann, to which we'll bounce all > announcements that do not directly, intimately relate to nettime -- > as measured, mainly, by the fact that some nettimer took the time to > send them specifically to nettime-l. If I were you, I'd be more draconian: all announcements from non-subscribers, and all announcements that aren't direclty relevant to nettime, get sent to /dev/null. I'd be surprised if many people would subscribe to nettime-ann; I think you're being too generous. Ben - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: [someone else] Subject: to eds Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:12:23 I like the idea of nettime-ann, because one of the effects of fwding general announcements is the temptation to adopt their idiom/style in other submissions (I am quite guilty of that myself), so I think this could be a way to make submissions more 'personal' (weird in this context, but still) and encourage those submitting to work out the nettime angle (which is always interesting even if the relevance is, as they say, 'obvious'). Maybe, it's worth a try. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 22:44:31 -0500 Subject: Re: <nettime> a proposal: nettime-ann From: human being <human@electronetwork.org> wondered this before... and- has it been considered for 'publications' also, which may include URLs... else, what is the defining difference between an announcement (i always supposed this was event-related, and time-based) versus 'publications' (which i am assuming is more static and url-related), then nettime-l is for discussion of ideas. not that this is how it is, just wondering how it is. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # 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: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net