> Specific suggestions:
> 5. List Breakup to Sub-lists? It seems to me the continued success and
> growth of this list is inevitable. However, success could be the downfall
> if the contributions become so many and varied that the reader has to wade
> through too much to get to something of interest. So in addition to my
> suggestion above of having say a dozen or so subjects, it might be well to
> be thinking of breaking this list up into several broad categories (fewer
> than 12 - say 3 to 6) and have the participants be able to pick which
> list(s) they want to sign up for. I question whether it would be within
> IAs administrative resource limits to offer this, but it might be
> offered in the context of setting up unmoderated lists if resources become
> an issue.
My analysis of posts of learning-org since the end of April shows
just barely over 200 uniquely-identifiable contributors of posts
to this list. That's interesting to me, because our work with
"discussion groups" within commercial organizations suggests that
about 50 active contributors is the minimum to achieve "critical
mass" for a lively discussion (fewer than the threshold and
there's too little diversity to elicit contributions). I would
expect that threshold to be twice, or even thrice, that for a
public list like this one where few participants actually have
had f2f contact with one another.
One consequence of "critical mass" is the variety of topic "threads"
that get initiated. What appeals to me is the way that one thread
of conversation in this maillist seems to get woven into another,
one idea along a thread seeming to inspire ideas in another. That
"cross-pollination" is one of the hallmarks of a good and lively
list from which participants report satisfaction.
Ultimately, lists like these are good candidates for splitting into
sub-lists when the size appears to stabilize, or even decrease, as
more people withdraw from the overwhelming volume of posts. Perhaps
the Host can be kind enough to share with us the recent history (say,
with the granularity of a month?) of membership numbers. So long
as the list attracts more people (who stick around; "churn" is often
a problem indicator, too), I say: "Don't fix what ain't broke."
In general, I would NOT like to see this list fragmented into
smaller parts. With as many contributors as we have, there's bound
to be some less-than-perfect signal-to-noise ratio, but I find even
those "noise" posts useful in determining whom I choose to trust in
different capacities (who, for example, is generally quick with the
objection; who's the most likely to pose a new idea; who does the
best job of posting reference sources for further investigation, etc.)
If you find this discussion contains threads that are not particularly
interesting to you, might I invite you to start threads of your own?
Furthermore, starting your own list--if you really have a specialized
interest to pursue--is quite simple. You might want to consider that
rather than ask our gracious Host to assume more duties.
-----
Host's Note: Thanks Carol for the analysis. I don't have good figures on
subscribers monthly, but I'll start tracking this (I'll put it in the
"periodic info msg." There is some turnover in subscribers. I don't know
how many people are reading via the Web or at subsidiary sites.
It is easy to see the aggregate volume of msgs by looking at the size of
the files. From January thru today, the monthly volumes in characters are:
Jan 828533 Characters
Feb 1038564
Mar 1014531
Apr 1033850
May 1283095
Jun 633285 thru Jun 19
-- Rick Karash, rkarash@world.std.com, host for learning-org
-----
--
Carol Anne Ogdin "Great minds discuss ideas,
Deep Woods Technology average minds discuss events,
CAOgdin@deepwoods.com small minds discuss people."
--Adm. Hyman G. Rickover