Re: [sl4] Re: META: closing the list

From: Gwern Branwen (gwern0@gmail.com)
Date: Thu May 12 2011 - 16:38:39 MDT


Theorizing that list closure might be of interest to LW, I posted
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/5n2/sl4_meta_list_closure_2_month_followup/
There are 19 comments on that page (including mine) versus 6 or 7
here. Apparently even LW cares more about SL4 than SL4 does. On a side
note, the only other non-closure non-Burton email since was a pointer
by Anissimov to... a page on LW.

On Mon May 09 2011 - 21:34:49 MDT, Randall Randall
(randall@randallsquared.com) wrote:
> * But, I am greatly against losing the archives. Just to be clear. Maybe they're mirrored on lesswrong.com or somewhere?

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Tim Freeman <tim@fungible.com> wrote:
> At this point, I agree, so long as they keep the archives up.

You're not the only ones to think I meant shutting down the website as
well; I thought I was clear, but apparently I was not:
http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/5n2/sl4_meta_list_closure_2_month_followup/452j

Short summary: I'm talking about the email list, not whatever web
server archives there may be. As far as I care, Eliezer can keep the
HTML archive pages on sl4.org up until the Singularity.

A static site avoids most/all of my criticisms, and would be useful in
showing up in Google results or providing a convenient viewing medium
for emails I might select if I ever get around to reading through the
archives.*

Providing a tarball or importing into Google Groups
(http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/5n2/sl4_meta_list_closure_2_month_followup/45ct)
are both nice to have, but strictly speaking, not *necessary*.

* http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/5n2/sl4_meta_list_closure_2_month_followup/452r

On Tue May 10 2011 - 06:04:32 MDT, Toby Weston (LordLobster@yahoo.com) wrote:
> In my opinion it would be a shame to see it closed.

I think it would be a shame for it to continue in its senility,
personally. ('shame' is an empty word that cuts both ways.)

Is there any reason to keep it open besides sheer nostalgia?

On Mon May 09 2011 - 21:34:49 MDT, Randall Randall
(randall@randallsquared.com) wrote:
> If a ML is not being used, and therefore presents no cognitive or server load, why bother inactivating it? It's a potentially useful thing that would require work to dispose of.

I disagree. At the bare minimum, the domain name has to be paid for. A
list server requires active hosting, while static HTML does not (the
cost difference can be striking). A separate OS running a mail server
is a large security surface, which requires nontrivial amounts of
someone's time to keep running - and if said sysadmin time is *not*
invested, then the server is a security bomb. The existence of an
'active' mailing list occupies mental space, adds overhead, and
divides a community that is already too divided; does it do so to a
huge extent? Of course not, but there's still a little friction there.

(Thought experiment: if you think that SL4 adds zero friction or
overhead or other negative factors, would you support a division of
SL4 into 16 different mailing lists focusing on different aspects?
Would you regard a counterfactual world in which SL4 had been started
as 16 different lists as a world that was more, less, or equally
efficient as the present one?)

On Tue May 10 2011 - 22:53:29 MDT, Mark Nuzzolilo (nuzz604@gmail.com) wrote:
> Don't you have better things to do?

How SL4 has fallen.

-- 
gwern
http://www.gwern.net


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:05 MDT