On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Hal Opperman wrote, in part:

> I do think that the default is better the new way, but it is evident that
> many subscribers prefer it the way it was.

Indeed.

>Tweeters is a hybrid list that serves two audiences.

No more so than any other list.

> For one audience -- the one that uses the list as a kind of open town
> meeting -- the old default "reply to list" is the appropriate one.
> The other audience uses the list as a bulletin board, searching for
> items of personal interest and replying directly to the person who
> posted them...

Excerpt from the Tweeters FAQ:

What is Tweeters? Tweeters started around the end of 1992 with
three people in the UW library sharing messages about bird sightings.
From this informal beginning it has spread around the state, the NW
and into B.C.

This group of birders is a diverse mix. Some are expert birders, some
like myself are in the intermediate variety, some beginners, and others
have just expressed an interest.

Everyone should feel free to send a message. Unique field trip reports,
interesting sightings, unusual bird anecdotes, questions for the
experts, etc.

>From this it would seem that Tweeters was originally set up for those
subscribers who want the "open town meeting" so that they can
*share* information about bird sightings and related subjects.
As stated above, the default "reply to list" is appropriate.

It seems to me that the "other audience" wants Tweeters to be something
else.

> The cohabitation of these two sometimes conflicting functions within the
> same service is why we have the present disagreement.

It seems to me that there is no conflict of function, or disagreement,
other than that asserted by the small "other audience".

> As I have said in the past, and reiterated recently, the only possible
> resolution would be to have two separate lists, and let people subscribe to
> either or both of them. Or we can learn to live with the conflict, with
> one side or the other at least mildly unhappy.

The *ONLY* possible resolution? It should not be necessary to resolve
what is, in fact, an artificial and/or non-existent problem. Clearly,
those who wish to establish a bulletin board type system, and who have
the resources to do so, may do so whenever they wish. Meanwhile,
Tweeters exists.

> But I do not believe that the change needs to be a win/lose situation at
> all.

Since the conflict is artificial, the above is meaningless.

> On the contrary, it is *every* subscriber who loses when messages
> intended for individuals are posted to the whole list.

???

> Making sure that those who do send messages to the list are doing so
> consciously (and not by accident) places the burden of responsibility
> where it belongs.

Making sure that those who do send messages only to the original poster
are doing so consciously places the burden of responsibility where it
belongs.

Reduced to its basic simplicity:

I subscribe to Tweeters. I get messages from Tweeters. When I reply
I want my default reply to go to Tweeters. If I want to reply to the
original poster (only), THEN I use the capabilities of my mail reader
to do so. This I accept as a special case relative to Tweeters messages -
after all, the messages come to me from the list server, not directly from
the original poster.

> This reform will not in and of itself shut down, or disrupt, the
> "town meeting" aspect of tweeters. Where there's a will there's a
> way, and our leading contributors *will* communicate!

"reform"? Oh, come now - "ill-advised change" is probably a better
term - one that probably more adequately expresses the opinion of most
Tweeters subscribers. :-(

I have to admit - reluctantly, of course :-) - that it is probably true
that this change will not have much actual effect on Tweeters communication.
Despite my sniping above, this whole thing is really a tempest-in-a-teapot.
Fact is, if people pay attention to headers, learn the capabilities of
their mail software, and are not unthinkingly obedient to someone else's
idea of the "correct" default, the whole problem pretty much disappears
- for either "side" of the so-called conflict.

Gary DuVall
Seattle
<bj054 at scn.org>