[governance] [procedure]Fwd: IGC Membership list

[Roland Perry]

In message <c2e.367e645e.359a48aa at aol.com>, at 10:33:14 on Mon, 30 Jun 
2008, KovenRonald at aol.com writes
>I don't see how the labeling idea below is a solution to the problem of 
>being flooded by unwanted messages. The messages are gonna be in one's 
>in-box, whether or not they're labeled.

I have a number of different mailboxes, they are organised like folders 
in a filing system (a bit like MS Outlook, but it's a different 
product).

>I really don't think I should have to instal a filtering system just to 
>be able to continue to receive substantive IGC message traffic.

Most email systems should have simple rules to filter out (or route into 
different mailboxes) emails with certain things in the subject line.

That is exactly the reason that this mail-list program automatically 
puts the [governance] tag on, so people can do that easily.

>I wasn't trying to suggest that procedural debate is like porn. 

Nor I.

>What I was suggesting is that there should be two separate channels

Exactly so. Two channels but fed from one mail-list.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance