Re: [MUD-Dev] META: Making the list public?

[Shawn Halpenny <malachai#iname,com>]

clawrenc#cup,hp.com wrote:
> 
> In <33CCD580.41C67EA6#iname,com>, on 07/16/97
>    at 08:40 AM, Shawn Halpenny <malachai#iname,com> said:
> 
> >clawrenc#cup,hp.com wrote:
> 
> >> E) How should new membership be handled?
> >>
> >>   Possible membership options:
> >>
> >>     1) Publicise the list but only allow membership by application.
> >> ie New members would have to apply, stating *why* they should be
> >> considered as members.  These applications would be posted to the list
> >> as well as my decisions on them.  (I'm not fond of this approach for
> >> the overhead it puts on me).
> 
> >I think we can assume that we are intelligent enough to judge a
> >person on his or her own merits where contributions to the list are
> >considered, meaning I think the current method of membership is fine.
> >The posting of the applications to the list would be more wasteful
> >noise than signal.
> 
> The problem is that once the list is publicised, how does
> BubbaPotentialMember having found out about the list manage to become
> a member?

In a previous post, I'd alluded to the existance of public-accessible
archives being a catalyst for new memberships.  A non-member who can read the
posts is free to comment on them to the respective authors (again, hinging
on the availability of the author's email address).  External interest in
the list can be judged, then, and those parties can be invited.  Too much
open--bad, read-only-list/archive open--good.

And what, in that case, do we do about those who do not wish to publicize
their email addresses?  Still thinking for an elegant solution to that.

-- 
Shawn Halpenny

"Raptus regaliter"
            - Latin for All Occasions