From: Alex Strasheim <cp@proust.suba.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 20:02:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "This is not Coderpunks--we don't need no steenking cryptography!"
In-Reply-To: <ad50b3ff09021004c04a@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <199602212254.QAA03552@proust.suba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text


> Coderpunks is a membership-only list, with a list.cop who approves
> membership and who expels those who post inappropriate material.
> Cypherpunks is an open list, with no one ever having been expelled.

I'm sort of surprised that no one besides Tim seems to be bothered by
coderpunks.  The idea of a cliquish technical elite developing crypto code
out of the public eye isn't very cyberpunkish. 

But at the same time, we ought to keep a couple of things in mind.  First
of all, the problem that coderpunks was organized to solve is a real one
-- cypherpunks takes a lot of time, there's a lot of noise, and it's often
frustrating.

What's more, the coderpunks list is a lot more open than some of the early
rhetoric suggested it would be.  Making the list archives available at
hks.net is a very positive gesture.  There was a post here last week 
claiming that no one had been denied membership to coderpunks -- that's 
very different from the policy advocated in some early coderpunks posts, 
which called for allowing new subscriptions by invitation only.  
Coderpunks seems to be shaping up as a reasonably open list that demands 
that its members stay on topic.  That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

I hope the new list catches on, and that it makes it easier for its
members to develop new tools.  But I'd also like to be able to continue 
to read it -- I hope that the members will see the value of not closing 
it off any tighter than necessary to keep their s/n ratio high.