In the circumstances, it makes sense to me to keep just the Dyfed list
going. I have never understood why certain areas are covered by more than
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gareth" <gareth(a)tytwp.plus.com>
Sent: 31 January 2006 23:17
Subject: [Dyfed] List admin's comment on lists' viability
Now that our aol listers are back with us I'd like to share with
growing concern that these 3 lists are *separately* teetering on the edge
becoming less than viable.
I'm referring of course to the very low level of list traffic, the lists'
archive statistics show the reality only too well.
Without getting too much into the history of the thing, the separate
lists of CGN & PEM came about more or less at Rootsweb's
whim, in the
beginning (1998) there was only Dyfed which did, and does, cover CMN, CGN
Powys was in the same position as Dyfed, yet the original Powys list is
vibrant whilst the separate lists of BRE, RAD & MGY see token traffic.
My inclination now is to follow Powys's lead and contrive to make the
list again the main conduit but keep the CGN and PEM lists going on a
There would be the added benefit of just about eliminating the need for
One disadvantage might be, for example, that listers interested in PEM
receive messages about CGN, but hey, look at the archives' stats
balance that against not getting duplicate mails)
I would add notes in key places which would explain it to new listers.
It would also make sense for most of us to then unsubscribe from CGN and
Nothing we decide has any bearing on the separate CMN list.
I would not support closing down the Dyfed list, that is not an option for
OK, that's my position as lists' admin, what do you all think ?
Please respond on just *one* of the lists you are subscribed to, Dyfed if
all possible, but please, please *not* to me off list.
Allowing for duplication, I would guess a total number of people at
Admin for the Rootsweb DYFED, CGN & PEM lists