NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1)
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Date:
Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:08:21 -0500
Reply-To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
In-Reply-To:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
Saw a thought on the NCUC-Exec list:

> It may be insightful for one/all calling for additional lists to indicate
> how many policy development process lists they would be on, just to compare
> and contrast e-loads?

for me?

about 25 lists for ICANN

more that that for the IETF

only about half dozen for the IGF

….

i receive somewhere around1000+ messages per day
skim 100's
read scores.

and some mailboxes i only get to a weekly basis or even monthly basis.
some even more rarely than that 
- only when I hear something interesting is going on.

modern mail systems are gems at organizing it all just the way i like it.

so iam always in favor of additional lists.  
though i think people should not copy many lists on one email.
but there are even filters for weeding out duplicates.

i can live with it either way.
but if i had a vote i vote to let a thousand mailing lists bloom.

avri

ATOM RSS1 RSS2