Other lists I am on (such as Ampex) are very stringently moderated, to a degree that they somewhat self-censor and stay on topic. That takes time and labor, but there is also a “back room” list that has no limits on topics, for people to chat as if in the lunchroom, anything goes as long as it is nice. :-)

Perhaps that would cut down on the unrelated chatter on both lists! Yeah, I know, a third one!

I’m interested in both lists, except not old records collections… archiving and restoration transfers is my specialty, which is sort of minor to most of who I think uses the lists.

<L>

On Apr 1, 2016, at 9:49 AM, Casey, Michael T <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The presence of a second list doesn't have to divide us any more than the concurrent sessions at the annual conference has to divide us. These can be viewed as serving a diverse membership and encouraging diverse voices. They are ways to focus and target issues and discussions. They are ways to encourage participation and enable new voices to emerge. Indeed, the concurrent sessions at the conference have partly sustained my attendance as I can be confident that I will learn something and that I will not hear the same voices over and over again.
> 
> Here are some of the reasons why I think a second list is needed:
> 
> 1. The ARSC list addresses valuable topics but features many topics that are not of interest to institutional librarians, archivists, and media preservationists. I often hear from colleagues that there is a lot of noise and chatter on the ARSC list. The combination of these two issues leads many folks to either tune out or simply get off the list.