Subject:
|
Re: Mailing list gateways
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Jan 1999 12:27:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2367 times
|
| |
|
|
"Linc Smith" <ldsmith@pfc.forestry.ca> writes:
> [...]
>
> I don't dispute that this happens, but if this you subscribe to this
> argument then you should agree that it can just as easily go the other way;
> un-foreseen disadvantages. "Harmless and effective, DDT will eliminate
> Malaria as a worldwide epidemic" 1960's
Yup -- works both ways! Trick is to identify as much good & bad up front as
reasonably possible.
> [...]
>
> > 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?
>
> Ahhh, hard to say. If there were *.sensors, *.LegOS, *.walkers, ect
> divisions within robotics, I would subscribe to all of them. Sure I don't
> understand LegOS all that well, but someone is going to post a "How to work
> with LegOS on a Win95 Machine" just like has been done with Linus, and I
> don't want to miss it. And, I learn by NG osmosis! However, I don't think I
> would read the competition groups that much if they were created. I would
> subscribe, but reading would be dependant on mood and time (do I really want
> to read this in case there is some tid-bit that will apply to my interests?)
My favorite thing about separate ng's is the mood & time thing -- plow through
certain groups quickly, then go back and read other ones as time or mood
permits... For me, the groups here are once a day for most, and several times
a day for others.
BTW, it's interesting that you mention *.LegOS in the list above... Egad,
there have been more than 300 posts about LegOS! Markus Noga (author of LegOS)
says he is definitely interested in having a dedicated group for LegOS...and
anything that helps him focus is more than welcome. I think, within 2 weeks
there will be 3 or 4 subgroups of the .robotics group (Robot Arena, NQC, and
LegOS). Just need to come up with a systematic naming scheme.
> The division of robotics might bring back the marginal readers (on Lugnet)
> who what to see announcements of bots, but not necessarily ASCII schematics.
Let's take this subject up on a new thread. :)
> My biggest complaint is the fluff, and the improper use of threads. Threads
> that change topics repeatedly but don't start a new thread (kinda similar to
> this one... oops :) and posts that pop up as new threads when they should
> have been left in the original thread. Some of this is education. I would
> think that the proper procedure for doing a post with the subject heading
> "topic A (was topic B)" is to make it a new thread... not leave it in the
> same thread that it originated. Otherwise whats the point. I don't know...
> like a lot of others.
Hopefully a FAQ will eventually help a lot of this too -- it seems like a lot
of the fluff is questions...
> > It's never too late to create sub-groups, BTW -- and the interest in doing
> > such is growing slowly but surely.
>
> This should be thought about carefully. I don't need much splitting... but
> others may want more or less. How do you decide? You have to look at
> percentages, and decide if the people that read this one will likely read
> this one too... don't split it (e.g.. *.arena.combat and *.arena.task -- for
> the majority of cases, if they are interested in one, chances are they will
> be interested in the other. What's a majority, and how do you find it? Who
> the hell knows!
That's why I don't trust majorities... Besides, in my mind, even (say) a 5% or
10% minority who strongly desire a special/focused/dedicated group for a
serious project should get one -- even if the other 90% is opposed -- so that
they don't have to go through the hassle (and complete separation) of setting
up a brand new mailing list, which is what they'd go do if they wanted a
focused discussion area badly enough.
The idea here with an "all-LEGO all-the-time" server is to keep LEGO things
united so that people don't have to break away when they want some room to
breathe. On Usenet you can't do that, because it's super-tough to make a new
non-alt group for specialty topics. That's why there are so many mailing lists
in the world, IMO.
> I think what really makes splitting attractive to me is, if you say on the
> Robotics mg/ng "All right everybody, NO area posts here! Arena posts should
> be made at Lugnet.Robotics.Arena, where there is a excellent dedicated group
> for just this topic". ml only users that are participating in arena are
> presumably going to make that quantum leap and now read Lugnet. Once they
> sign in (which is for some inconceivable (to me) reason is soooooooo
> hindering) they have made the big step. Once here their posts will hit the
> right groups.
>
> There is still the problem that I mentioned before -- that of ng/ml
> separation... is it going to happen and if so how. If it is going to
> happen, then perhaps the sooner the better. But to be honest I would
> immediately join the ml if I couldn't get it here. And the ml is not moving
> voluntarily over to the ng. I won't ditch the ml until it gets really bad
> (hmmm where has this happened before :). This touches on the big problem I
> wrote about in the last post (you are digesting it). As it stands now there
> is nowhere to move to.
I don't think it makes any sense to separate the ng/ml link (not that you're
suggesting ever dissolving it) -- I think that's there to stay for a long long
time, but as you say two paragraphs up, I agree that things will get less
cluttery over time with carefully chosen sub-groups.
> [...]
>
> > 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 believe this is an artifact of the medium (newsgroup). If you have an
> opinion and state it, every one sees it and you can feel obligated to defend
> it if asked. If you lean to one side on some issue, but not enough to make
> you an advocate, by being wishy-washing you don't have to put the effort
> into defending your position... you have none. E.g.. I think less people
> would vote in a municipal election if after marking your ballot, you had to
> hold it up to a crowd who could then debate your decision to support the
> person you did. One-on-one debate is less effort and might be less
> daunting, so you are willing to state more admittedly your true feelings,
> even if they are contrary to the interviewer's. This talks to the statement
> below.
Sounds like a great analysis!
> > 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?
>
> I tried to be one, but damn it! The server started to choke. ;)
Hey, at least you've stuck to your guns (mostly) and defended your position!
:)
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mailing list gateways
|
| Todd Lehman wrote in message (...) exist. OK, I see what you mean. (...) obvious (...) easier (...) 1950? (...) I don't dispute that this happens, but if this you subscribe to this argument then you should agree that it can just as easily go the (...) (26 years ago, 22-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
|
|
|
|
