On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:45:50AM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote: > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 07:30:53PM -0300, ilv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > Someone might "hey, but if we have a mailing list for language X, we should > > have one for language Y". To avoid this (supposing that we want) we could set > > some requirements like for example there should be at least one core member > > willing to run the list. > > I think yes, we should try the experiment of making this list and seeing > how it goes. > > I like your notion of "there should be at least one core member willing > to run the list." I'm tempted to suggest "at least two" to prove that > we have some sort of critical mass before making a list, but I think we > can figure out the more exact policies when we have tried this list and > we're considering a second one. > > But to be clear, it needs to be more than just "one core member > interesting in *starting* the list" -- they need to commit to *running* > the list, meaning keeping its discussions on track, moderated against > trolls, etc. > I agree. And in this case that's what I was thinking when I offered to maintain the list. > A second principle that I would propose is that we have a periodic > check-in point, like every six months or something, to decide whether > the experiment is working as intended. If the list hasn't been used much > lately at the check-in time, or things are otherwise not going as you > originally imagined, that's a great time to decide to change things. > Yes, we can evaluate the status of this (and others if we go for it) at each Tor meeting. > George is totally right that there are risks with creating new lists, > first because maybe you make a list that never takes off, frustrating > the people who signed up hoping it would be something, but second because > splitting communities can kill existing lists *too*. > > So a third principle that I would propose is that the list runners should > keep an eye out for things that happen on the list that people from the > more "mainstream" lists probably want to know about, and send a periodic > summary or something. Same thing goes for watching other lists for things > that folks on the new list probably want to know about. And if you find > yourself spending a lot of time telling people from different lists about > what happened on the other lists, then it's time to stop and wonder if > things are set up wrong. > Makes sense. I can do that for this first list and after some time we can evaluate how it is going. Thanks for the comments, --i
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-project mailing list tor-project@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-project