Subject: Re: [NYCGA-IWG] quick poll on this google group
From: Wanda Sponda
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:48:23 -0500
To: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com

I am not at all active on the IWG however, I have been lurking on here for a weeks.  It has and continues to be a learning experience, and not just about Internet issues.  Often there will be general announcements that do not show up in other places or do so belatedly do to developmental problems within any number of working groups.  The fact is that this is the go to center of information by default.  It just aint all tech talk, although I'm not so sure it should be...

That stated, I would like to see a huge concerted effort to get as may working groups off of google which, I just learned is now indexing f* book entries, (yet another reason for a heads up in terms of privacy concerns) to say nothing of twitster. The NYCGA beta site is only getting better. So many of us are so thankful for that!

Sorry is this seems ambiguous but, I would like I think of people who are trying to connect and get involved. Until there is more cohesion between working groups and their functions are more clearly defined I think this should remain in tact.  Let's see what happens once the Spokes Council meetings have finished determining working group status in a way that will help facilitate communication on the NYC GA web site. 

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, elly <urbanpubedreform@gmail.com> wrote:
ugh. Maybe it has to do with administrator permissions? I think google's a bit opaque in certain things like this...


On 11/11/2011 12:12 PM, Devin Balkind wrote:
I moderate the interocc list and can't find the internet list in my membership management.  I don't know why this list is receiving correspondence from that list.  If anyone would like to poke around the mailman's backend to solve this problem please let me know.

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Charles Lenchner <clenchner@organizing20.org> wrote:
Anything that removes off topic posts and cross posts, and reaches down the
intertubes to throttle the necks of off-topic-istas is welcome.

Count me as a strong vote in favor of invisible censorship for maximum focus
on IWG issues only. Please err on the side of fewer posts and fewer group
members.

I would however, enjoy a system where all of the posts we delete from
moderation end up on interocc anyway. Surely there's a technical way to do
that?

Charles

-----Original Message-----
From: internet_working_group@googlegroups.com
[mailto:internet_working_group@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sam Zimmerman
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2011 12:47 PM
To: internet working group
Subject: [NYCGA-IWG] quick poll on this google group

hi all -

In the course of moderating comments to this google group, it looks as if
90% or more are reposts from the Interocc list that are not particularly
relevant to internetty topics and concerns.  It seems this dilution makes
this google group less interesting and useful to the internet working group
and drives down participation, people stop following, etc.

Has conversation amongst the internet working group mainly migrated over to
nycga.net? (where there are 332 members)

Is this group still useful?

If so, to get it back on point to internet working group concerns, I'm
floating a proposal:

How about we create a new google group, have all the human subscribers sign
up for the new group, and turn this one off, thus escaping the tyranny of
the Interocc cross-listing.

Thoughts?

- Sam




--
Devin Balkind
@devinbalkind
vitamindwb.com




--
NOTICE: THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) OF THIS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION IS PRIVATE AND COPYRIGHT.  IF YOU RECEIVE THIS IN ERROR PLEASE CONTACT THE SENDER AND DELETE THE MESSAGE. THANK YOU.
< PREV INDEX SEARCH NEXT >