<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18813"> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space" bgColor=#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New"> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">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?  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">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.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">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.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New">Larry</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT size=2 face="Courier New"></FONT> </DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>