This post is about the level and quality of discourse here on this list. Because of the number of posts I make (and one hopes, the quality?), I get a fair amount of personal mail directed at me from people with personal gripes about the way the list discussion is working, or not working, or "should be run," and so on. Some of these points I even agree with...and sometimes I tell my e-mailers this. But several things need to be said: - the list has more than 700 names on it, last time I checked (send the message "who cypherpunks" (in the body) to majordomo@toad.com) - these folks have diverse interests - often newbies join the list and have things they want to get off their chest; their agenda sometimes dominates the discussion until they've exhausted what they wanted to say (or burn out and leave the list) - old-timers who have been on the list for many months, and sometimes since the beginning in October 1992, have seen the main themes many times and may not want to contribute each time a thread comes up - the list is an anarchy: it is not "run" by any one person, although Eric Hughes has certain powers as List Administrator, and John Gilmore has other powers (as owner of the machine on which the list runs). [Please, not another debate about who owns the list, about how our words are not owned by Hughes et. al., etc. And, please, not another meta-debate about why shouldn't we debate this. One of the problems with a community of 700, any of whom can take the "floor" at any time, is that any statement gets a rebuttal, every debate becomes contentious. _This_ paragraph will likely be angrily rebutted by at least one of you out there.] - I repeat: the list is an anarchy. There is no voting, no membership, no Board of Directors, no formal policies or charter. Just a collection of relatively common memes. This whole issue came up again when a list member sent me a message saying he had been lurking on the list for several weeks and that he would "give it another couple of weeks" to see if the S/N ratio--for the things that interested him--could be improved. I wrote him the following reply. I have of course edited out his comments and replaced them with vanilla comments. "I've been lurking for several weeks. I'm unhappy with the large number of posts which have little to do with this list. I'm more interested in crypto methods, software, etc., and had hoped to see more discussion of that." There's certainly a lot of what you are talking about, wouldn't you say? Yes, a lot of other stuff, too. That is, mixed in with all the political stuff, the jokes, etc., is a fair amount of commentary on algorithms, new code, status of exising programs, etc. This certainly will appear to be fragmentary (e.g., a bunch of short comments about D-H code), but this is because Cypherpunks is a mailing list, not an essay list exclusively. Most of the main stuff has been written about at least several times, so newcomers cannot possibly expect a steady flow of tutorials, incisive essays, etc. (And a steady flow of tutorials would turn-off a lot of others, ironically.) "I'm not willing to read 60-80 messages a day to find the stuff I'm interested in. Or to find the associations with the alleged topics at hand." [the last is my correspondents choice of phrasing.] Then you are probably best off leaving the list, as nobody will tailor their posts to match your exact needs, or even your approximate needs. "I'll stay for another few weeks, then leave if things haven't improved. However, I'd be interested in corresponding by mail with others who are interested in working on code." There have been at least half a dozen such attempts to create spin-off lists, or subsets of the main list. There was a "hardware punks" list, a "steganography list," and at least several regional sub-lists. All have died for lack of interest. or at least are dormant. For example, the "DC-Net list" was formed a year ago, by some guys who were tired of reading about topics that didn't interest them. There was one message, the welcome message, and then nothing more. C'est la vie. (I joined several of these sub-lists, out of a sense of duty and mild curiousity to see how they would do, and there's now zero traffic on them. It's a critical mass problem: the Cypherpunks have the critical mass to sustain discussions---perhaps sustain them too long, some might say.) "Maybe I misunderstood what the cpunks list was all about..." The best way is to lead by example. So, where are your posts? I look forward to them. But complaining that not all of the posts are to your liking is pointless. I can't change what other people write, can I? Nor can you. The thing you can change is what _you_ write. Besides, and this will be my final point, the list has been running since October 1992, with an average of 400 people on it (700 recently). Most topics have been covered at least several times, and sometimes a dozen times. The "old-timers" will thus usually sit-out these nth rehashings of TEMPEST, or the powers of the NSA, or steganography, or whatever. If you want a higher level of discourse, begin it. --Tim -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-688-5409 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."