[MF] the way forward for MoQ discussion lists

[Valence]

Hey all,
You know, I have to say that I think that this thread has been one of the
most interesting in recent memory.  Everyone is making great points and the
more I think about it, the more uncertain I've become about my own opinions.


SAM SAID
I have in mind this experiment done for putting paths across a town square
whereby there were no paths put in to begin with, but then, as people
crossed the green, they tended to take particular paths, which wore down the
grass and then became the 'official' paths - duly stamped by those in
authority.

R
This is a great analogy for what I was also thinking of.  I figured we
should experiment by starting with 5-10 relatively broad topic lists, with
themes that are focused enough to be meaningful while being broad enough to
generate a lot of conversation, within which, as Sam said, "...anyone can
start up a thread appealing to their own interests, and then it'll be a
question of 'survival of the fittest' - appropriately evolutionary for the
MoQ." The same principle would apply to the rooms themselves; we see which
rooms draw attention and which don't, and periodically change the themes of
the less popular rooms to see if anything sticks better (or to just stir up
new conversations when older ones die out).  

But Sam's analogy has brought my attention to a weakness in this scheme, to
wit:  Unless everyone is subscribed to all of the lists, there will be no
common "town square" from which we can see where the paths are forming; and
if we are subscribed to all of the lists, then we completely lose any hope
of "inbox control" through specialization of topics.

SAM
It's been pointed out that there is a great waste of effort when discussing
Pirsig's metaphysics when one group (a) wants to explore the implications,
whereas another group (b) wants to examine the presuppositions.

R
I guess I have no strong objection to this in theory, but I don't think it's
going to work out because we're not going to be able to agree on what we're
exploring the "implications" of.  Yes, it's easy to say we're exploring the
implications of "LILA" or "the MOQ" or "Pirsig's philosophy" but I don't
think we're going to agree what exactly that is, on how Pirsig should be
read or interpreted.  What happens when on day-1 Platt starts discussing the
implications of Pirsig's comments on capitalism and DMB says that Platt is
misreading Pirsig?  Does the conversation get moved over to the other forum
until they can settle it?  Or do we only get to discuss the implications of
the parts we all agree on (if there even are any such parts)?  Will there be
a list of "MOQ Axioms" that will be authoritative in the event of a dispute?
If so, who gets to write it?  Or will we settle it with some kind of vote?
(And just to be clear... those are NOT rhetorical questions designed to
snidely make some kind of point or points... I'm genuinely wondering how you
all are envisioning how this kind of thing will go down).

I'm starting to think that maybe one list, with limits on the number of
posts (daily, weekly, monthly) might be the way to go.  I mean, that will
give us a more manageable flow of mail, it will make people take their posts
more seriously, nobody will get "drowned out" because the overall level of
"noise" will be significantly reduced, and each thread gets to live or die
by the interest it generates.  Maybe that's the simplest, most pragmatic
solution.  I'm not so sure anymore.

Take care
rick

PS
Sam, I love the "frappr" idea, but I suppose it would be up to Horse as to
whether or not it's doable.