>From: Erik Olson <olson at galileo_phys.washington.edu>
>Subject: newsgroup

>I would certainly vote for it, just because you shouldn't have to spend 
>your work time maintaining the list.  But this is a good group of people
>here; I'd hate to see it diluted with newsgroup dreck.

I was kidding when I said that I ought to get back to work.  I spend
fifteen minutes a day maintaining the list, and I do it from home.  I
do wish someone else would take over, but I am sure there will be
plenty of volunteers if we decide to continue the mailing list.
Losing actwin.com would be a more serious problem, but even if we do,
we should be able to find a new home.

You (and Steve Pushak) are right when you say that a mailing list is
in many ways better than a newsgroup. A mailing list is more informal,
it is more tight-knit, and it is less susceptible to disruptions like
spams, annoying ads and flames.

One possible option is to retain the mailing list while going ahead
with a newsgroup. However, I've heard that if this happens, the
experts tend to stay on the mailing list while everyone else migrates
to the newsgroup.

>From: trigg at jane_cs.waikato.ac.nz
>I'm definately keen on having a .plants newsgroup, but shouldn't it be
>called rec.gardening.aquatic.plants :-) (is Sexton even on this mailing

I'm not going to touch this. :-)