[SLL] Seattle only?

[Mitch Frazier]

I don't think that we have any plans of trying to "change" the nature of 
the list, that's sort of up to the people who contribute.  Our main 
concern is that we don't want to say "here's a list that talks about 
linux" if the folks that use the list currently think of it as being 
Seattle-area related.

As I mentioned in another response, "Seattle" related traffic on the 
list is pretty slim (or posts that are in any way geographic oriented, 
for that matter).  Of course what it is day to day and what people 
"think" it is are two different things.


Ken Meyer wrote:
 > Mitch --
 >
 > Just to put another oar in the water, I as others, appreciate that 
SLL has
 > prevailed despite all of the commercial machinations that have 
befallen SSC
 > and the Linux Journal.
 >
 > I think that SLL is a great list.  I would not like to see 
information about
 > events, equipment deals, and just some idle chatter exclusive to 
Seattle be
 > ruled "off topic" in the future, which is not the case at present.  Also,
 > "Seattle Linux List" is a nice promo for the fact that Seattle is 
involved
 > and sometimes influential in the OSS movement.  And because of its 
relative
 > obscurity of late, membership is mostly promoted by word-of-mouth (or of
 > keyboard) between folks who are relatively knowledgeable about the 
subjects
 > at hand.  It would be a shame to reduce the content to a rash of "I 
seem to
 > have lost track of my behind; cam anyone direct me to it?" questions.
 >
 > However, that does not mean that it could not be promoted on the national
 > level with success.  It might be well, as part of the promotion, to 
insure
 > that people are aware of other resources for learning various aspects and
 > levels of Linux as well, and to note that SLL deals with details of 
the art,
 > for the most part.
 >
 > Also, as Mark Twain reputedly said, "Reports of my death are highly
 > exaggerated", we shouldn't assume a priori that more publicity of the 
list
 > would drive it down the toilet.  If it becomes clear that the publicized
 > list is drawing incompatible types of attention, there is nothing 
that keeps
 > it from "mitosing" into several more focused lists in the future, if
 > desirable.  It probably wouldn't make any difference to my InBox, as 
I would
 > probably subscribe to all of the sibling lists.
 >
 > Ken M.
 >
 >
 > -----Original Message-----
 >
 > From: linux-list-bounces at lists2.linuxjournal.com
 > [mailto:linux-list-bounces at lists2.linuxjournal.com]
 > On Behalf Of Phil Hughes
 > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 6:39 AM
 > To: Mitch Frazier
 >
 > Cc: linux-list at linuxjournal.com
 >
 > Subject: Re: [SLL] Seattle only?
 >
 > Well, the list did start as a glorified announcement list for "pizza and
 > beer" nights in Ballard. Many years ago now (maybe 10) I remember doing a
 > bit of analysis on the list members and at that time about half were 
in the
 > Seattle area. Not sure about it these days--I think I am the only 
member in
 > Estelí, Nicaragua. :-)
 >
 >
 > On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Mitch Frazier <mitch at ssc.com> wrote:
 >
 >> A number of long time users send to this list with the email:
 >>
 >>   Seattle Linux Users Group <linux-list at ssc.com>
 >>
 >> We're wondering, as in "we" at Linux Journal (we own ssc.com and host
 >> this list), if this is/was really intended to be a Seattle only Linux
 >> user's list.  And if so if its desired to keep it that way.
 >>
 >> If that's not the case we would like to promote the list once in a
 >> while.  If its preferred to be Seattle only that's fine.
 >>
 >> Maybe somebody that's been here a while can fill us in on the history of
 >> this list.  I suspect Phil started it, but I don't know.
 >
 > --
 > Phil Hughes
 > nicafyl at gmail.com -- phil at ctpni.com
 >