We should make all of Lloyd's FoRK-noarchive posts public.
> At 08:36 AM 6/3/98 -0700, Dr. Ernest N. Prabhakar wrote:
> >Ah, but you forget that FoRK's primary method of reproduction nowadays is
> from people hitting the archive and being sucked in by one tidbit or other.
> And that one of the reasons for the list's existence is to explore the
> evolution of a electronic community in the fishbowl of a public archive.
> >Protecting the archive 'a priori' is equivalent to putting up a 'no new
> members' sign. We'd only get people who already know someone else, which
> is hardly any fun at all.
> >Viva the new blood!
> >-- Ernie P.
> Yeah, but when it gets to the point that having the list continue in that
> manner is more of a pain than not, is it really worth it? Is this really
> just an experiment or is it also something useful? I find it's more
> important for FoRK to be useful than a voyeuristic fish bowl. However, I'm
> not in charge, so that's a decision that needs to be made by others.
> The list that I'm on that works in the manner I discussed earlier has been
> happily in existence for about as long as FoRK. It's grown without much of
> a problem, mostly through word of mouth. Plus, I think (with the possible
> exception of Rohit's posts) that people on that list tend to be more open,
> since they're not worried about some random person coming back to haunt
> them with the words they've posted.
> The other option, by the way, is to password protect the xent archive, and
> leave the findmail archive wide open. The findmail archive does an
> excellent job of hiding the email address of fork as well as all the
> individuals' email addresses.