[mou] Why two lists? How about 3?

[Michael Engh]

I agree that MOU should be more inclusive and supportive of new birders.

I was intimidated by MOU as a new birder several years ago and really
enjoyed participating in MN bird.
=20
On the other hand, I stopped subscribing to MN bird because the volume
of emails was too much to receive while I was at work.
I then subscribed to MOU net because the volume was less and I wanted to
keep track of the more unusual/hotline type sightings while at work.
=20
I welcome the evolution of MOU net to be less exclusive. The enthusiasm
and friendliness of Mark Alt is great PR for MOU.
=20
But, do I dare suggest a second MOU service which would be more limited,
not to be snooty at all, but to limit the number of emails so I can
still receive unusual and timely bird news at work. Does anyone else
find themselves in this position?=20
=20
There have been attempts to standardize keywords on the subject line to
allow email filters to filter out hot reports but that is hard to
explain to users, hard to get right, and hard to enforce.

I also remember an attempt to start an mn-ornithology list but never saw
any postings.=20

Mike Engh