[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [AUDITORY] better listserv tech



Hi all,

As Dan mentioned that the current setup is implicitly acceptable to most, I thought I’d just state explicitly why it’s acceptable to myself:

1. This list is a wonderful, almost indispensable source of information.
2. It is great that it is oldschool and it works. Every new tech has caveats that may not be immediately apparent (maintenance, privacy issues, hidden costs). If you want extra features, you can always do it on the client side (fancy email clients, AI if you don’t mind them reading your mail, etc).
3. It is extremely important that the list does not rely on a megacorp (Google) for tech. There are multiple political, ethical and practical reasons for this. Bottom line is that the AUDITORY list is by now an important piece of the history of auditory science. We need to be careful with it, as with any historic artefact. Last thing you want to do is to hand over a Da Vinci painting to Google for safe keeping, right? Sorry for being a bit over the top with the analogy but I hope the point is clear.
4. Dan Ellis does great work.

Best,
Chris


On 16 Apr 2025, at 17:45, Dan Ellis <dan.ellis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Since my name was mentioned...  

A few years back I suggested moving the list to Google Groups.  (At that time, McGill was having some problems with their listserv setup, but it seems fine now.)  My interest in Google Groups was that it was modern and probably long-lasting, but many people were (I think) uncomfortable ceding control to a megacorp, so no action was taken.

We have a very large and diverse membership, which inclines me to stick with what we have -- which is, implicitly, acceptable to most (although we have had dozens of departures in the past few weeks).  I regret that the flexibility isn't as great as some would wish, but my feeling is it works pretty well.

Thanks for the constructive discussion.

  DAn.