Re: Syndicate: bureau automation

[Amy Alexander <plagiari@plagiarist.org>]

On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Frederic Madre wrote:

> Suddenly it grabbed me that the multiplication of automatic processes
> was in fact just a cheap cop-out for moderation (a process that you
> all know I abhor and, yes, consider as fascistic) and that it was even
> worse and too facile on the mind to just tick a few boxes in an
> interface to actually get rid of a person. voila, sublime technocracy!
>

i see your point that it might be too easy to ignore people without knowing what they're
about to say. on the other hand, i wouldn't equate user-selected filtering with moderation, since
moderation is a centralized control in which readers aren't given the choice whether to filter
or not. i'm not sure a custom interface with tickboxes would be any worse than existing
filters in mail programs (set 'em and forget 'em). and i wouldn't propose to prevent people
from filtering, since that would itself be a centralized control.
i see your point that an interface that said "click here to filter out integer, click there to filter
out amy, etc." might send an undesirable message that the list invites readers to ignore whomever they
don't like, but on the other hand, i don't see making the existing capability of filtering
more accessible for those who want it. (but probably the aforementioned tickboxes should
not be on the hypothetical interface.) there are already those who can/do filter, but there
are those for whom existing options may not work; would be good if they had the same options.

> Let me tell you, as an aside, that I never use mail filters because I
> do not mind stuff filling my inbox (and subfolders for which I have
> filters as a sorting facility) and more importantly I believe that
> somebody may be boring me today (and that might very well be because
> of my frame of mind at the time, not his) but someday s/he will
> _certainly come up with something that I fancy.
>

yes, but there are people with limited bandwidth who are getting
overwhelmed with the volume of mail, so it would be good to come up
with a plan for them.

and yes, good point about filters - a filter doesn't have to mean "message deleted" -
it can mean - "message put into a separate folder, where i can decide to read it if i have time."
this is how webmail services like yahoo usually do it - you can put things in folders, and read
them later, but you don't have to download it til your read it.

but unlike webmail, it would be great if a proposed syndicate mail-reader software could
keep track of what messages a
user had filtered in subfolders on the server, without actually making copies of the
messages in each person's folder.

> Anyway, I am still very much interested in using mail thru-put as raw
> matter for something else but not for list admin because I truly feel
> that an ml should rule itself, or die.

good point for interpretation: what does it mean for a mailing list to
"rule itself?"  how much are rulings collective and how much on an
individual basis?  (politics anyone? :-) ) i would consider that allowing
users to customize what they read on a list would be consistent with
self-rule. and i wouldn't consider it technocratic; after all, i can throw
away mail i consider junk without opening it, only read the sections i
want of the newspaper, etc...

>Still, I had abandoned the tweakings because we found out that it was
>quite difficult to develop the channeling processes we dreamt of on top
of
>something like mailman. I imagined that the first thing would be to
design
>a relational database and on top of it the application, but I had not
gone
>as far as nn's idea which is to develop also the client part: that does
>open up possibilities massively and i'd _love to participate in such a
>project, yes please.


yes, i'd think also that at least the locus of control would want to be on
the client side. nn's idea of a more theatrical interface is interesting
aesthetically, and i'm always interested in experimental interfaces as art
in any case. i suspect some readers will prefer a more traditional
interface though for mailreading, so that option should also remain in
place.

in any case, the devil is in the details, and technical implementation would be a good bit
of work either way.


> but, to sum it up, I believe that such software would not be able to
> replace the useful and, dare I say, homey feel of a traditional
> mailing list running on vintage majordomo with people directly out
> there.
>

yep, i'd go for having both available.


-@

-- 
plagiarist.org
Recontextualizing script-kiddyism as net-art for over 1/20 of a century.


-----Syndicate mailinglist--------------------
Syndicate network for media culture and media art
information and archive: http://www.v2.nl/syndicate
to post to the Syndicate list: <syndicate@eg-r.isp-eg.de>
to unsubscribe, write to <majordomo@eg-r.isp-eg.de>, in
the body of the msg: unsubscribe syndicate your@email.adress