[APG Public List] Why two lists? was Articles about Google and
jeanettedaniels8667 at yahoo.com
Wed Oct 7 10:00:45 MDT 2009
I couldn't agree more. One list would do just fine.
From: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>
To: LBoswell <laboswell at rogers.com>; Claire Bettag <claire at clairebettag.com>; Mail list APG <apgpubliclist at apgen.org>; Mail list APG <apgmembersonlylist at apgen.org>
Sent: Wed, October 7, 2009 9:35:45 AM
Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Why two lists? was Articles about Google and copyright
apologies for not changing the subject line, but I was intentionally posting this one to both lists, and used the 'reply all"
----- Original Message -----
>To: LBoswell ; Claire Bettag ; Mail list APG ; Mail list APG
>Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:33 AM
>Subject: Re: [APG Public List] Articles about Google and copyright
>Why have two lists? I've yet to see anything go by on the private list that couldn't have been made public. There are already members forums inside the membership area (haven't checked lately because they were largely inactive). Do we really need our own sandbox, hidden from the view of "the public," to put it in lighter terms?
>Given that those who subscribe to the public APG list must have either an interest in the APG or are thinking of becoming members eventually, why do we need a cloistered list? Seems to me that one could even argue that having a private list, thus shutting out those with an interest in professionalism who aren't yet members, is contrary to what the APG stands for.
>What's the thinking behind the creation of two lists, and whatever the thinking was, is it playing out as expected? Are there enough "private" issues as were expected? "Members Only" sign needed? I think what's going to happen is that the two lists are going to carry the same kinds of discussions, and comments about double posting will become the norm.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the APGPublicList