On Thu, 31 May 90 16:27:42 CST Steve Middlebrook said: >Okie dokie. > >From my point of view it seems silly for there to be dozens of non-NIH NIH >Guide lists floating around with us trying to peer them, etc. We should >have one non-NIH NIH Guide list, set it up for Mail-via= DIST and then >we never have to deal with this stuff again. > >NIH would only have one non-NIH NIH Guide list to feed, so I would think >that would please them. Having one "open" list sounds good (as long as NIH doesn't mind). I don't think the folks at NIH care how people on NIHGDE-L (the NIH run list) distribute the guide locally. So, if people choose to use a local Listserv list, fine. In fact, Listserv is perfect for such a task. But I do think that it would be helpful if the local lists were truely local, that is with Confidential=local or Confidential=service. >JHU, do you want the honors? Or I can change the WUNIHG-L list to not >look so ego-centric. What would be a good name for a non-NIH NIH list? I'm willing to host it, but if someone else wants to that's fine also. That really wasn't the point of my original posting. I was more curious about how the current situation came to be and what (if any) problems would result. I would think that NIHGUIDE is a good name since there are already three "global" lists by that name. :-) >I would request, though, that the NIH NIH list be set up so that it would be >hidden from people who might see it and try to subscribe to it. Since average >humans could only subscribe to the non-NIH NIH list, it should be the only >globally know version. I don't think that's necessary. Right now, if someone tries to subscribe to NIHGDE-L, the request is forwarded someone at NIH. I assume that NIH then contacts the person requesting the subscription and they are included in the distribution after some additional information is provided. Also, the list header clearly describes the purpose of the list and how people who wish to participate should go about contacting NIH. >stm -jj