[14846] in APO-L
Re: Suggestion for APO lists
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan T. Alloy)
Tue Aug 13 23:22:32 1996
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 23:20:18 -0400
Reply-To: "Jonathan T. Alloy" <jalloy@EROLS.COM>
From: "Jonathan T. Alloy" <jalloy@EROLS.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
At 10:03 AM 8/12/96 -0700, Lisa Martina Covi wrote:
>APO-L/APO-ANN: Alpha Phi Omega Announcements
>APODISC: Alpha Phi Omega General Discussion
>APOLEGIS: Discussion about 96 Convnetion Legislation
>APOSOC-L: APO Social Discussion (same)
I too remember the discussion about splitting apo-l and creating aposoc-l.
However, the issues are different this time, and therefore, I suggest we do
not split the lists.
In '93, there was a clear difference between the social and business
discussions, with very extensive social traffic, as in over 70 posts *per
day*. The business traffic was more moderate. So, APOSOC-L was created, and
all was good in the world.
I do not believe the traffic on APO-L is so heavy that a new split is
warranted. APO-L has handled admirably the ebbs and flows of business
discussion, including *announcments of moves, charters, conferences, etc
*convention legislation every 2 years and *general discussion. Remember,
much of this is done on a temporary (nat'l con discussion is really only
every other Sep-Dec) or erratic basis (the rest).
By splitting into new lists, I think we will:
* lose subscribers regularly, as people unsub at the end of semesters and
forget to resub
* not get people involved, as they may not know about all the lists
* generate unneeded excess traffic, as corollary to someone's law that "work
(or traffic) expands to fill the time (or the lists) available"
* miss out on the synergy of conversations, as one topic bounces into another
So, I vote no on this idea.
In L,F,S,
Jonathan
*********************************************************
Jonathan T. Alloy jalloy@erols.com (301) 617-0567
