RT list: discussion of the aims of the relevance list

As administrator of the relevance list I welcome the recent discussion
on the list of the content and form of posts and the aims of the list.
I hope that we can have more discussion now and improve the list as a
result.
It is my duty as administrator to urge contributors to the discussion
(and to the list more generally) to avoid personal attacks on other
list members. If necessary I will step in to enforce this rule. Meta-
discussions are quite difficult enough without personal remarks.

All mailing lists, in the end, depend on their users. A successful
mailing list is one where enough of the emails (which come from an
active minority of subscribers, usually) interest the majority of the
subscribers. My suspicion is that a sign of health in a mailing list
is that the proportion of members who post to the list, if only
occasionally, is not vanishingly small. There are 409 of us subscribed
to the list currently. I think that if a few more of us posted a bit
more often, the list would be much better. (In saying this I do not at
all mean to disparage those who have been keeping the list going in
recent months, just to suggest that a few more of us should pitch in.)

I've been looking at the archived messages:

http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/robyn/relevance/relevance_archives/
http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/robyn/relevance/relevance_archives_new/

As well as many useful announcements, there have been several very
enjoyable discussions. I hope for many more in the future.

All the best,
Nick

Nicholas Allott
Postdoctoral research fellow (and RT list admin)
CSMN
University of Oslo

n.e.allott@csmn.uio.no
nicholas.allott@gmail.com
Received on Thu Jan 14 11:59:26 2010