This issue gets brought up periodically (and once by me), and at those times the mods have convinced me that we shouldn't (or at minimum had an argument against that was as good as the argument for). However, at this point in time, I think you have a point. In the past, I've answered more questions than I do now. Some of that is because I have been busy at work, and some of that is because a variety of reasons that are probably related to the group size.
But I think splitting up the groups by user experience or complexity is a bad idea. For every new user at whom I just want to scream "Read the docs!" there are many who simply need a push in the right direction or have found a bug/idiosyncrasy in flex that they have no hope of figuring out unless they have someone with a little more experience telling them that they aren't going crazy. And we want those novices on the same list as the veterans. If a significant portion of the knowledgeable user base flees from the newbees, those new adopters won't have as good a chance of having their answers solved and the growth and quality of the community will be harmed. (I'm not saying it will take a nose dive or anything, but it won't be as good as it could be.) I think I could make a similar arguement for people who might be making the jump between intermediate to veteran, or business class, to enterprise class. (I know right now I'm on the border between business and enterprise class.) I agree that we should have some different lists differentiated on content. Key word there being 'some.' The more we divide, the more our knowledge is divided. Let's not go overboard. But I think with the release of BlazeDS, remoting now has enough traffic to get it's own group and we could define a clear set of content that would be in that group. A third group (or actually a forth group after flexcoders, flexcomponents, and remoting) might be useful, but I wouldn't endorse the idea unless someone else can suggest a good idea of what would go in that space that would be clearly differentiated by content, and allow users of all skill levels to join. - Daniel Freiman On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 9:10 PM, Anatole Tartakovsky < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear All, > > Flexcoders has huge problem. In the last 15 month it is very much > stagnant in terms of message count and participation. It is not growing and > dropping members as fast as it gets them. > > I believe this group has overgrown the optimal size about a year ago and > needs to be divided in more focused smaller groups. My mail box get 100+ > messages a day on all kinds of topic - unless I can spend 30+ minutes that > day to sort them out it goes directly into garbage can. Most people in the > company unsubscribed from it 18 month ago. Most of veteran developers I know > either unsubscribed or stopped looking in this mess greatly diminishing the > quality of the responses. As a result group mostly host new developers and > looses most of experienced ones after very short period of time. > > Further delay of breaking this group hinders usefulness of the group for > all of us as now we have significant amount of users that are being forced > out. I believe it is time to archive flexcoders and branch (12?) targeted > new user groups > > I would like to see people suggesting user subgroups and WiKi topics for > Flex community site to go with each group - providing best posts in more > systematic way. > > I suggest the following Yahoo groups ( created couple for your > convenience). > > Flex101: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/flex101/ > > Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > EnterpriseFlex: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/enterpriseflex/ > > Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > List owner: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > FlexUI > FlexDesign > > FlexSDK > FlexDeployment > > FlexFlash > > FlexFrameworks > > FlexBestPractices > > EnterpriseFlex: > > FlexBlazeDS: > > weborb: > > Sincerely, > Anatole Tartakovsky > Farata Systems > > > > > > >
