Re: posting by ROMPALLI V S N MURTY; preceded by a suggestion for TELUSA

V. Chowdary Jampala (cjampala@dayton.net)
Wed, 27 Dec 1995 15:14:41 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 27 Dec 1995, D. Sreenivasa Rao wrote:

> In practice however, this will be slightly more complicated: consider
> that a TELUSA poster wants to reply to a follow-up on SCIT. Because
> cross-posting is not the norm, there will have to be two different
> replies, thus causing more work for the poster and also breaking the
> continuity of the flow for the TELUSA readers. This is bound to
> happen very frequently... Did I get the proposal right, or am I
> missing something??

There is a concern (quite valid IMHO) that there may be some
follow-ups to TELUSA posts on SCIT of such tone that is unwelcome in TELUSA,
and some TELUSA readers/posters don't want such posts to appear in their
mailboxes.

To avoid such an eventuality, it was suggested that everything published
in TELUSA appears in SCIT, but the SCIT posts won't appear in SCIT. So
discussions in TELUSA can go on uninterrupted by non-TELUSAers. If a
TELUSAer wants to reply to something that appeared on SCIT, it would need
to be done separately from TELUSA on SCIT. (Actually, it can also be
posted on TELUSA too, but that would be subject to the two problems you
mentioned).

> It defeats it in the sense that heavy concentration of literature
> related articles will dissuade posters with other interests; and

The modal number of posts on TELUSA on a usual day is less than
10, which is only a fraction of the number of posts on SCIT. I do not
think this would overwhelm SCIT to the point of driving away other interests.

> ... Thus although I am partial to literature, I don't see it
> as a primary focus for SCIT.
>

Me too.

> An action plan for rekindling SCIT while retaining its character and
> promoting its charter. Since we agree that some or all TELUSA posts
> could do part of this job, maybe we should focus on figuring out a
> mechanism for this step (work out the technicalities), experiment with
> it and see how it goes. Then maybe the 'policing' proposal and the
> 'seed article' proposal can be discussed more clearly. Later on maybe
> even the scit-moderated proposal.
>

Sounds good to me.

Regards. --- V. Chowdary Jampala