From jmabel at speakeasy.org  Wed Jun 20 22:10:44 2012
From: jmabel at speakeasy.org (jmabel)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Scn2] Why different from the scn list
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.1206202210020.17459@shell2.speakeasy.net>

OK, so I've joined, but why is there a need for a separate list from the
existing scn list?

--------------------
Joe Mabel


From randy at scn.org  Fri Jun 22 13:05:07 2012
From: randy at scn.org (Randy Groves)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:05:07 -0700
Subject: [Scn2] SCN: scn2 list or this one?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1120622124340.10319A-100000@scn>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.58.1206210852290.17459@shell2.speakeasy.net>
	<Pine.SUN.3.96.1120622124340.10319A-100000@scn>
Message-ID: <CAPqX1Oop_-VkSONEPRQLz0xCV+d9TR-tPFkybB-QiXK3ttGHSQ@mail.gmail.com>

My guess is that the two will tend to blend together fairly quickly.  And
I'm a little concerned about folks who are new to the conversations being
confused as to which list to use.  Looks like 20+ on this list have already
voted, as there were that many subscribed the last time I checked.

-randy

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:50 PM, J. Johnson <jj at scn.org> wrote:

> In general I would say _this_ list ("scn"), because this is the one we
> have always used for this discussion.
>
> But: A distinction could be made between talking about what can be done on
> SCN, and the broader problems with SCNA.  It might be useful to have a
> separate SCNA list.
>
> === JJohnson =====================================================
>
>
>
> * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
> To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
> In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn2/attachments/20120622/f66e11b7/attachment.html>

From randy at scn.org  Fri Jun 22 19:18:43 2012
From: randy at scn.org (Randy Groves)
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:18:43 -0700
Subject: [Scn2] SCN: scn2 list or this one?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.58.1206221304270.32514@shell4.speakeasy.net>
References: <Pine.SUN.3.96.1120622124340.10319A-100000@scn>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.1206221304270.32514@shell4.speakeasy.net>
Message-ID: <CAPqX1OptphO4rufMgwPAG++tz2YwUcV3tC9vVk2L=8J5RZGrew@mail.gmail.com>

OK - enough dithering on my part.  Here's what I propose to do.  And
apologies for those of you who just subscribed to the scn2 list!

For those of you who are just joining us, there is an existing list '
scn at scn.org' that has been in existence since 1995.  Many topics have been
discussed on the scn list, but the main thread centers around SCN/SCNA and
the past, current, and future of the system called SCN and the organization
called SCNA.

Several people have observed that there will be a lot of overlap between
the old list 'scn' and the new list 'scn2', and that there doesn't seem to
be a good reason for having two lists.  I agree.

There was a technical reason that a new list was created - it is running on
a different mail list software package that is considerably newer than the
software package that runs the older 'scn' list. This newer software
package, called Mailman, provides web-based tools for both admins and list
members that allow much easier maintenance of the list and of individual
member's settings.

I propose that the current subscription lists of scn (currently about 50
members) and the newer list (about 20 last check) be merged - under the
'scn' name, and moved to use the newer Mailman software.

Unless I hear a great hue and cry, I plan to do this Sunday night.

What will that mean for all of the current 'scn' members?  Nothing of
note.  The current alias 'scn at scn.org' will be directed to the new list, so
access can be the same as you have always used, or you can also mail to the
more direct 'scn at scn9.scn.org'.

For those of you who have subscribed to the scn2 list - those of you who
are new subscribers - I will send an invite to the combined list - and once
you are subscribed, discussion will take place on either 'scn at scn.org' or '
scn at scn9.scn.org'

I hope that this all is not too confusing.  Hopefully, after these initial
bumps in the road we'll be on the way to doing some productive and
constructive work getting this old show back on track.

Thanks for wading through this note, and - please - if you have any
questions feel free to drop me a line.

-randy


On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 1:05 PM, jmabel <jmabel at speakeasy.org> wrote:

> I think there's enough overlap, and the distinction is subtle enough in
> many
> cases, that it is simpler to keep the discussion in one place, at least
> for now.
> If later we are really rolling again, then of course there will be reason
> to
> have several quite distinct working groups.
>
> --------------------
> Joe Mabel
>
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2012, J. Johnson wrote:
>
> > In general I would say _this_ list ("scn"), because this is the one we
> > have always used for this discussion.
> >
> > But: A distinction could be made between talking about what can be done
> on
> > SCN, and the broader problems with SCNA.  It might be useful to have a
> > separate SCNA list.
> >
> > === JJohnson =====================================================
> >
> >
> >
> > * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
> > To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
> > In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn
> >
> * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * *
> To unsubscribe send a message to:  majordomo at scn.org
> In the body of the message, type:  unsubscribe scn
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.scn.org/pipermail/scn2/attachments/20120622/7cd17dfa/attachment.html>

From ccruz at scn.org  Sat Jun 23 02:25:09 2012
From: ccruz at scn.org (ccruz at scn.org)
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:25:09 +0000
Subject: [Scn2] SCN: scn2 list or this one?
Message-ID: <201206231625.JAA07013@scn4.scn.org>

scn2 at scn9.scn.org