 | | Reconsidering .admin.council group
|
|
[Crossposted to .admin.general & .admin.council; followups to .admin.general] (...) In retrospect, creating the lugnet.admin.council newsgroup was a mistake. The intention was to have a place where delicate or time-consuming issues could be resolved (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general) !
|
| |
| | Re: Reconsidering .admin.council group
|
|
Removing lugnet.admin.council does sound like a good idea, but it might be worthwhile to keep the messages and a pointer to them somewhere. There is some valuable discussion there, though expressing editorial control over what is kept accessible and (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Reconsidering .admin.council group
|
|
(...) I was planning to remove it from the active list of groups, which would mean that it wouldn't show up in newsreaders or on this old page anymore, (URL) all the messages would still appear archived at the website if invoked via URL -- kinda (...) (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Reconsidering .admin.council group
|
|
(...) That sounds reasonable (and goes with your "never delete messages" ideal). Frank (24 years ago, 25-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Reconsidering .admin.council group
|
|
(...) Is it safe to assume that the "council" itself is also no more? For the record, I think the idea of have a group of people to make decisions on all sorts of subjective & objective issues is a good thing, especially if that group of people (...) (24 years ago, 28-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Reconsidering .admin.council group
|
|
(...) 10-15% (...) Interesting UKism, gotta try to remember it. derived from tent poles? (...) Can you say who they are? I can tell you this, the Guild does its internal business via mailing list but all the Bricksmiths are participants (some more (...) (24 years ago, 28-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
