Re:
>Quicky exercise:
>look at the typical calibre of post here.  Compare it with the
>mean post in say comp.lang.smalltalk or camp.lang.lisp.  Another
>quicky: how many spams have we received for being part of this list.

I'm extremely happy with the high quality of postings to this list.

I get absolutely zero spam, so I'm fairly certain that the Squeak
list is not a source of spam.

I'd prefer to keep the Squeak list in the form of one or more
mailing lists, and NOT turn it into a usenet newsgroup.

If the list were divided, I'd probably read all the sublists,
so it doesn't matter very much to me how it is partitioned. If
the list were divided, I like Sam Adam's proposal:

> * squeak-announce remains for general announcements,
>   especially new version/platform availability.
> * squeak-vm for all the VM implementers and their discussions
> * squeak-library for all the talk on fixing and enhancing base
>   classes (float hash, equality vs identity, collections, et.al.)
> * squeak-apps for morphic, PWS, Siren,Draw80, etc.
> * squeak for general info and questions, how tos, newbie tutorials, etc.

However, I think fewer categories would be even better, so
I'd suggest combining "squeak-vm" and "squeak-library" into
"squeak-system" and perhaps merging "squeak-apps" into "squeak".

The result would be just three lists:

	* squeak-announce
	* squeak-system
	* squeak

The chief benefit would be that Squeak users wouldn't have to listen
to chatter about how to improve the underlying system (class
library and VM). I suspect the VM and library hackers would end up
subscribing to all three lists, so this wouldn't be saving them any
traffic. However, I believe most of the traffic is potentially
of interest to such folks. 

	-- John