mailing list

[David E. Manifold]

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Nathan Hawkins wrote:

> Dear Tunespeople,
> 
> I'm starting to think that perhaps we need a separate mailing list for 
> the LLL project, if only to avoid arguing the same issues endlessly. 
> (Fare and I already flamed the LLL vs. HLL debate thoroughly, until we could 
> see eye to eye, and I really don't have time to take it up with each of you,
> one by one. Neither, I suspect does Fare.)
> 
> Also, implementation details of the LLL/386 subproject, while fascinating 
> to some of us, may not be of interest to all. My question is: is there 
> sufficient interest in this, either positively (meaning people want to 
> read about LLL/386 implementation, possibly even want to help) or negatively 
> (meaning people here aren't interested, and may want nothing to do with 
> it) to warrant establishing a separate list for it? Or are things just 
> fine, the way things are?

I think this is a great idea.  I am not interested in most of the LLL 
implementation discussion that is going on now on the main Tunes list, 
but I would like to occasionally look at what is going on in the LLL 
project.  Two separate mailing lists would help me out a lot.  People 
interested in both could simply subscribe to both.  Messages related to 
both could be posted to both lists.
 
> In addition, how would this fit with the Tunes charter? Please note that 
> I am not in any way trying to split the project, just wondering if this 
> forum is capable of discussing HLL Tunes and LLL Tunes, without getting 
> flamish.
> 
> *utsl*
> 

There would have to be clearly delineated rules stating the precise 
purpose of each list, what messages should be posted to what list, and 
exactly what to do in case of subjects relating to both lists.  To have 
two separate lists, someone would have to draft up these rules.

David Manifold
<dem@pacificrim.net>