Fork FoRK, creating SPoRK?

Mike Masnick mike@techdirt.com
Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:41:01 -0800


Ah, clearly you're new if you still believe that old line about RK standing 
for Rohit Khare.

I absolutely second the notion of SPoRK, though, if only to make filtering 
easier.  I do find both discussions interesting, and would definitely stay 
on both lists, but it would make it easier in determining how to prioritize 
my *oRK reading.  Of course, then the argument is who actually leaves 
FoRK.  Should it be the "SP" folks or the tech folks.  Maybe it should 
remain FoRK and ToRK for technology posts (yes, I'm just trying to stir up 
a little FoRK-style trouble).

And, I *thwap* Jim for not saying the obvious that this is a "forking of 
FoRK".  I'm also wondering if there aren't other offshoots we can go 
down...  (*insert your own witty offshoot here* - I'm too tired to think of 
any).

I'll also say that, knowing the speed with which things get done around 
here (see: spam blocking, FoRK), that I'll look forward to the inaugural 
SPoRK email sometime in early 2006.  :)

Mike

PS Besides, who *isn't* interested in the society and policy issues of Rohit?

At 10:21 AM 3/19/2003 -0800, Jonathan S. Knoll wrote:
>i'm fairly new here, but wouldn't that mean "Society and Policy issues of
>Rohit Khare"?
>
>that just seems weird.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com]On Behalf Of Jim
>Whitehead
>Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 10:07 AM
>To: FoRK
>Subject: Fork FoRK, creating SPoRK?
>
>
>Is there anyone else on the list who might be interested in turning FoRK
>into two different lists?
>
>While the core definition of FoRK was never very precise, it originally was
>more technology focused. Much list discussion now is focused on broad
>society and policy issues (SPoRK). I'm not going to make value judgements on
>these categories -- discussion in both is fun and interesting, and I've
>participated in both.
>
>At least over the past year or so, there has been a greater volume of SPoRK
>mail than "classic" FoRK mail. I think it would be valuable to split FoRK
>into FoRK and SPoRK, keeping the membership of both lists the same. People
>who like FoRK as it is right now, just filter all SPoRK mail into the
>existing FoRK folder, and it'll look much the same. People who want to pay
>attention to SPoRK over FoRK, or vice-versa, can make multiple folders, and
>give them varying attentional resources.
>
>Is there any other support for this, or am I just on crack?
>
>- Jim
>
>PS - Yes, I realize this will start discussion that is undoubtedly just
>another classic phase in the evolution of mailing lists. Tough noogies.