Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Jan 1999 22:11:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2360 times
|
| |
|
|
"Linc Smith" <ldsmith@pfc.forestry.ca> writes:
> > But if I'm understanding your conclusions, then the flaw, I think, is in
> > concluding that a lack of an obvious need for something is a reason not to
> > do that something.
>
> I conclude that a lack of an obvious need for something _is_ a reason not to
> do that something. If I have 10 bucks and someone says "place a bet with
> me... if you win I will give you your 10 bucks back, and if you loose I will
> give you $9.99". No advantage in betting is there? Is there an advantage if
> on winning or loosing you get your 10 bucks back? This is how I feel. Now
> I am the easiest kind of person to win over, since all I have to see is one
> advantage.
I meant, sometimes non-obvious needs exist even when no obvious needs exist.
And sometimes when neither obvious nor non-obvious needs can be identified,
something can still be worth doing. Most "needs" that people identify with
started out as wants or desires or even apathy or unawarenesses.
In other words, sometimes the need (or desire) for something becomes obvious
(or even manifests itself later out of the blue) long after the fact, when
people have used something long enough to realize that the new way is easier
for them than the old way. How many people needed a microwave oven in 1950?
Or wanted to buy books and CD's on the Internet in 1990?
> If we get enough people to say... "I _do_ think there is an advantage" then
> I am with it. My contribution to L-CAD is so small, that feel uncomfortable
> discussing this as much as I do. But, I do feel that there is merit in the
> status quo, and I realize you do not.
I never said I thought there was no merit in the status quo...(I hope I haven't
given that impression!) To the contrary, I think there's a *lot* of merit in
the status quo. I just think there's _more_ merit in ng+ml than in purely ml.
> [...]
>
> I still feel that the gateway _helped_ the Lugnet.robotics group -- a group
> that had a substantially smaller readership and knowledge base. Keep this
> in mind as your read the next paragraph.
>
> The influx of both these attributes was positive, but at the same time the
> group's ability to grow on its own, attract its own readership was sold.
> What I mean is, Lugnet.robotics is tied to the list... a greater part is the
> list. Subsequently, Lugnet.robotics can not grow separate and attract its
> own readership separate from the mail list, and I think this is a real
> disadvantage. Granted, maybe the Lugnet.robotics might still be in it's
> infancy if it had not been gatewayed, but it would be itself... small,
> focussed and on-topic (exactly where the whole Lugnet domain was a few
> months ago, and now?). I foresee a disgruntled population of list users
> wanting to get away from the list's frustrating posting practices
> (billion/Y2K come to mind). Lugnet normally would have been able to offer a
> haven for these people (just like it did for the RTL user), but it can't now
> that it is gatewayed. If there was to be a split in the future (no idea if
> that was planned, and I am not suggesting it) Lugnet.robotics would have
> lost the "building time" equal to the length of the gateway duration. The
> growth and development potential for the Lugnet.robotics ng was exchanged
> for the immediate benefits I mentioned above; the Benefits I enjoy! But had
> it remained seperate, I believe it would be coming into it's own... right...
> about... now!
That's deep... Must...digest...slowly...
> I now read Lugnet.robotics like it is RTL... probably too quickly (miss
> stuff that I might like to read), but I don't have time to filter the fodder
> otherwise. I think that there were marginal reader that just stopped.
Do you see the problem there being too much off-topic fluff or too many
dissimilar sub-topics? I see some of both...mostly the latter...do you see
other things that make it unpleasant to wade through?
It's never too late to create sub-groups, BTW -- and the interest in doing such
is growing slowly but surely.
> [...]
>
> > If you believe that there is no clear advantage in something, yet someone
> > else does, it's usually impossible to convince them that the advantages
> > they see aren't there. What you might try to do instead, if you want to
> > change their mind, is show them the clear disadvantages and how they
> > outweigh the perceived advantages.
>
> If someone finds that spinning around once before sitting makes them more
> comfortable once seated, I am not going to start doing it because I can't
> think of a reason not to. I won't stop them either.
What I meant was, you seemed to be constructing a case that L-CAD shouldn't be
mirrored or moved because you didn't/don't see a clear advantage. If that's
true (if this is the case you were making), then I simply wanted to suggest
that perhaps a more convincing case against mirroring/moving would argue
disadvantages over advantages, rather than arguments based on the absence of
perceived advantages or the absense of obvious needs.
> Ps Todd you can answer this in a private email if you want (I don't think
> anyone else is reading our stuff :) With all the advantages that you list
> Lugnet has to offer, why isn't the robotics list user moving? I propose it
> is status quo at work. Until the mail lister user is **disadvantaged**
> there will not be movement. Being advantaged is not enough for a movement,
> unless the advantage is substantial.
I'd agree with that. There are people who jumped from the ml side to the ng
side as soon as the ng<->ml gateway was put into effect, and there are still
many people who use the ml side only and aren't even aware of the ng side. And
then there are people who actually prefer ml's to ng's (I gather because of
things appearing in their inbox and interrupting them for a fun break) but
overall, I think you summed it up perfectly.
> I offer the recent soundings of people
> wanting to move L-CAD to Lugnet; do you think it is because they all of a
> sudden had an epiphany of the advantages, or that the server choking is
> causing a **disadvantage**. This is also seen in environmental
> responsibility.
I think 80% of the people don't care whether it's an ml or an ng -- they just
want to have a place to talk -- and the other 20% don't feel strongly enough
one way or the other to speak up about it until something bad happens -- like
the ml server choking.
In general, when collecting opinions, it's sometimes frustratingly difficult to
get responses other than, "Well, I kinda lean toward this, but the other thing
is OK with me too; I'll go along with whatever the group decides." Especially
when opinions are collected all at once rather than focused one-on-one.
I think people often put dampers on their enthusiam or skepticism when making
public statements. I think if you took confidential surveys, the responses
would tend to go into more depth. I think it's also difficult to get people to
answer how they truly feel about something independent of everyone else -- to
separate how they feel from how they think the group feels. Nobody wants to be
a party-pooper, right?
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message <36a6c04d.53070399@l...et.com>... (...) do (...) I conclude that a lack of an obvious need for something _is_ a reason not to do that something. If I have 10 bucks and someone says "place a bet with me... if you win I (...) (26 years ago, 21-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
80 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
