🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <34amhs$1u9@news.ycc.yale.edu>,
Una Smith <una@doliolum.biology.yale.edu> wrote:

>Una Smith <smith-una@yale.edu> wrote:
  
>>>It also means more new readers, and thus possibly more traffic.
 
>Museum Informatics Project <mip-arch@garnet.berkeley.edu> wrote:
 
>>This is undoubtedly a _good_ thing
 
>It's not a good thing if enough MUSEUM-L subscribers vote NO,
>to prevent their mailboxes being stuffed with more traffic;  

Right you are. I was responding, assuming that you meant the group was
already established.
 
>If you choose to go in a "big 7" Usenet hierarchy, you *must*
>have a useful naming structure.  Perhaps sci.infosystems.museum?

I like to say that museums are in the information business, to twist
the minds of many who (still) think of museums as in the collections
business. But, that aside, I think that both "sci" and "infosystems"
are probably going to create lots of (negative) discussion among
discussants, probably for some good reasons.

>There are at least 6 library-related mailing lists now gated
>to bit.listserv.*;  it would be good to see these grouped
>together.  Perhaps it's time to organize them into, say,
>bit.infosystems.*, or move them over wholesale to sci.*...

Or, perhaps in *.collections.*.  Museums, libraries, archives, personal
collections, are all kinds of collections, and have _some_ common problems,
goals, things to discuss. Now, whether it is bit.* (which wouldn't work
for groups/lists that don't come from bit-world), or something else
(wish there were something else than sci.* ??), needs further discussion.

BTW, this gateway thing (i.e., read: initiative/responsibility) is John
Chadwick's baby (MUSEUM-L List Owner); I'm just sticking my 2-cents in here
as an interested MUSEUM-L'er.
Peter Rauch