>What is the scope that you envision for our postings on G+? How much should be focused on news items, and how much room do we have for “idea” posts, say about Petri nets, or our programming efforts?

At this point I'd say all these are fine; we should try things and see what people like. G+ seems to work best for items that are one or two short paragraphs, together with an eye-catching picture.

> Nevertheless, I still suggest that we either ask Rasha Kamel to be more selective in posting, or else to set up a separate Azimuth news channel.

I understand your feeling here, but I'm a bit reluctant to have people who aren't posting things to G+ to act as 'supervisors' to the one who is, telling her to post less. If you can post more interesting things than her, it will soon be apparent by the higher +1 score, and then it may make sense to ask her to be more selective.

Right now I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I sometimes feel like posting more to the Azimuth group on G+. But 25,000 people have circled "John Baez" on G+, while only 1,600 have circled "Azimuth". So, I feel that anything _really important_ posted to Azimuth should also posted under my own name, so more people will read it. But this creates a vicious circle, since it means that my own posts tend to stay more interesting than Azimuth.

> Also, I am frustrated with the standard Google interface to it, which suffers like the wordpress blog from a lack of table of contents, and a way to keep track of where you are in the sequence of messages, and how much you have read so far. Or am I not using it correctly? I tried reading backwards in time, and there was a lot of mileage just to go five days back, and then I lost track of where I was.

I read Google+ between once every 20 minutes and once every 5 hours, depending on what else I'm doing. I rarely bother reading things that are 5 days old. So I think it's for people who want to tune in and see what's going on now, not people who want to engage in long conversations or develop serious ideas. If I had an interesting idea about Petri nets I would blog about it and then perhaps post a link to that on Google+.