I think it's a great idea. It would definitely need to be bcc all the time in order not to be spreading email addresses unintentionally.

And in other news, I'm the one who organized the maria effort, I knew I wasn't hitting everyone who would want to help, but didn't know how to, and (don't look, maria!) it's still ongoing! So if anyone still wants in on that, feel free to ping me at profile addy, or lj (fatoudust) or facebook (lisa kprinkle). Paypal to lisa@hopeintransit.org.

And, to be kind to our eyes, send stuff out bcc:, but that may just be a personal preference. Of mine.

But that would mean there could be no conversations.

I figure it should work something like this:

Sally the organizer sends and e-mail to Pippa the keeper of the list, saying "Hey, I'm organizing a thing for Lorenzo. Could you please send out this e-mail to everyone? [Sally provides text for the e-mail] Ask them to respond to me by e-mail at iamawesome@gmail.com by two days from now (or whatever). And forward anyone to me who responds to you by mistake. DON'T FORGET TO REMOVE LORENZO FROM THE E-MAIL NO, REALLY, DON'T FORGET! Thanks, Pippa, you are awesome!"

Then Pippa the keeper sends out the e-mail, whoever is interested responds to Sally the orgainizer, and it's up to Sally how she wants to conduct the conversation -- by e-mail, lj, smoke signals, whatever -- but she uses only the names of the people who respond to her. Obvs, if she uses e-mail, then, yeah, she has to put the e-mails out there to conduct the convo. But she's conducting it only with the people who are interested, and she's running the show.

The keeper really just needs to send out the original e-mail announcing the project. That way, also, if a Big List participant does not join in on a particular project, he or she does not continue to get e-mails about it.

That's as far as I've thought it out.

So people are giving the maintainers their email addresses but they want them kept secret? Is this what the misdirection is about? Okay. It seems kind of weird to me--I'm not giving the maintainer my address if I don't want to share it.

(Which reminds me....I remember emailing Deena a few years ago about Aimee's Christmas list for Secret Santa? I know MsBelle is doing the Santa thing now, but whatever happened to those wish list/preferences datasheets that Deena would keep? Were they passed on to MsBelle? I ask, because I'd be happy to be the keeper if we need a volunteer.)

It's not about secrecy to me, personally -- I just don't like looking at long lists of e-mail addresses. I, personally, don't think e-mail address secrecy among this group is a huge issue. I could be wrong.

The way I have it planned up there is about 1) letting the orgainizer run the show, 2) keeping the maintainer out of it other than being a contributor if so desired, and 3) preventing everyone on the Big List from getting every e-mail, every time about every project.

I... you know, I don't think forwarding e-mail addresses around within this group is an issue, but who knows.

This way, you get the information like everyone, and then it's up to you whether you can/want to decloak and participate in a particular project. You might just want to send an e-mail to Sally for this particular project saying, "Hey, don't put me on the e-mail discussion list, just ping me where and when to contribute when it's decided, please." Who knows! Sally has to figure she might get some specific requests if she takes on the project.

Again, bcc: for me is more aesthetic than anything else, but at the first level, not a big deal to do.

Is this what the misdirection is about?

What part were you talking about with misdirection?

I just don't like looking at long lists of e-mail addresses

My email client doesn't show me a long list of email addresses, so this didn't occur to me. It defaults to a line or so, and you have to click to see the full list.

What part were you talking about with misdirection?

Sending it from one person, but replying to someone else. At the point where I need to cut and paste and replace an email address, and the organiser needs to manually assemble a list, it just seems like a lot of work. But if you're going to have a standing list that means your email will be hit up for every effort without contextually picking and choosing, maybe manual compilation of the email list is best. The way I've seen it work, trimming down the list hasn't been a problem, but they've been pretty much well designed (too small rather than too large) to start off with.

Oh, OK, misdirection has negative connotations to me, and I was pretty sure you didn't think I was being nefarious. Or, magical act practicing ones. That's redirection, to my mind.

My e-mail client probably does the same thing these days. But bcc: on the original e-mail still seems fine to me

I think I see what you're saying. I think the work of manually compiling a list for the organizer is worth it to not have the worry of not hitting everyone who might be interested. Or if people don't object, then the organizer could get the complete list and prune from there. Or we could send it out not using the bcc: Totally up for discussion.

But I do think people need to reply to the organizer and a project-specific list needs to be made to avoid everyone getting every e-mail about everything. And so that people are not replying to the maintainer about the project.

Insert logistical question: So, you can even set up e-mail to respond to a different address? If a specify a "reply to" address in my gmail, is that what would happen? Would it completely skip me and go to Sally? ETA: That's how we count votes here, isn't it? Der.

Also, Sally could just reply to e-mails saying, "See my lj post; send me a friend request if needed," if she had lj and wanted to go that way. No need to compile a list at all, though, of course, maybe someone doesn't have lj. Organizers, organize at your own risk.

I think it's flexible.

It will be work for the organizer, but it always is. It hits all the things that are important to me. Hitting everyone first, giving the organizer control, not involving the maintainer beyond that first e-mail.

ETA: And, of course, no one has to use it. Just there if someone wants it.

Not all clients let you override the reply-to field.

Gotcha.