> Also, to Bjorn, that's a point I hadn't thought of. The idea of having an > arch/concepts list might be interesting. The two questions I would have > would be: 1) would the questions on this list have any connection to Flex
Anatole mentioned it earlier in a 'Best Practices' list. For example at MAX thy had that Best Practices panel and some interesting topics were brought up and discussed. >From my point of view I'm always learning. It would be an interesting read for me. --- In flexcoders@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Freiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree that a FAQ seems like a good idea no matter what. Is anyone against > this idea independent of the argument of whether or not to split the list? > > As far as splitting lists, I still think if people want to propose potential > new lists, they need to be much more explicit about what the list will be > for. I'll take the "enterprise" example. Let's assume for a second it has > only one correct meaning (which is an assumption I agree with, but many > people disagree with me on that). "Enterprise" has become a buzzword with > many different commonly understood meanings, and most of those meanings are > vague. There's no way for everyone on the list to be sure that we're > talking about the same thing unless someone explicitly spells out what we > are talking about (I'm not going to because I'm against having a > "enterprise" list given every way I know to interpret the word). And if we > don't have a common understanding of the proposal we can't efficiently > criticize/support/amend the proposal. I'm not saying there has to be a fine > line separating the lists, but it should at least be a fuzzy line. > > Also, to Bjorn, that's a point I hadn't thought of. The idea of having an > arch/concepts list might be interesting. The two questions I would have > would be: 1) would the questions on this list have any connection to Flex > other than the fact that the users code in Flex (I think it probably would) > or would it just be piggybacking on the user base; 2) Will it avoid > stratification of the user base (i.e. will it be practically accessible to > users of all skill levels)? > > Lastly, I'm going to reiterate my opinion that we shouldn't separate the > lists based on skill/level difficulty. The distinction is too fuzzy (Too > much cross-posting and too much posting to the wrong list). Sometimes you > don't know if you're question is advanced or not until you get the answer. > I've had a few times where I've asked what I thought was a simple question > and the response from Gordon was "I talked to a guy on the player team..." > If a question has a one line answer it can't be complex...unless the one > line required going through the player or compiler code to understand it > (sorry for the overstatement). > > - Daniel Freiman > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Douglas Knudsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Having been on this list since 2004, yeah back when the Iteration > > folks were not Adobe Robe Wearers yet, I've seen this discussion come > > up a few times. I've asked for a associated FAQ a few times, but > > there was no interest from the Iteration folks on this or splitting up > > things, no offense Alistair or Stephen you more than rocked with > > helping this community. I'd certainly agree to a good FAQ be made > > available and sent to the list monthly for all to be reminded and have > > it linked at the footer. > > > > Bjorn has a good point later in this thread about the idea that > > answers are terse due to volume. > > > > Matt, I do agree with your #1, but #2 and #3 sounds too much like list > > mommies or invitations for list mommies. Something quite uncommon to > > the best of my recollection on flexcoders is the real need for list > > mommies. > > > > I'm in Anatole's camp on this, having multiple lists could be > > beneficial to all as well as the community. Do we know this for a > > fact? Nope, my crystal ball isn't helping, but it has with many other > > topics in the past. Conversely it may have hindered others, but > > perhaps because the introduction of split lists was premature, who > > knows. Hey, there are already multiple lists, besides flexcomponents > > there is HOF_Flex for one and the India based list too, I'm sure there > > are others. > > > > I suggest we start off with a couple very generic variants. > > flexcoders_enterprise seems ok to me, those that work with enterprise > > tools would find it obvious. leave flexcoders as is, add in a > > designer centric list, and a advanced list and go from there, revisit > > in a few months to see how it went. > > > > Oh, BTW< there are other email readers that do threaded tricks like > > GMail...though I don't use them. :) > > > > DK > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Matt Chotin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mchotin%40adobe.com>> > > wrote: > > > Hey folks, let's calm down a little here, K? > > > > > > Alright, based on what I've been seeing people say, here's my suggestion. > > > > > > 1) Let's get an FAQ going that can be edited by moderators or members of > > the > > > community. This will be about common problems that folks run into. One > > > suggestion of course from me would be that we use the Cookbook for > > "how-to" > > > type questions. But for things that don't seem like they're cookbook > > > appropriate, we can put them in the FAQ. I like the idea of doing it in > > > Buzzword, though Buzzword docs won't come up in Google. Long-term I think > > > the right place might be in whatever we set up in the Adobe Developer > > > Center. But for now how about we just allocate a page off of the > > opensource > > > wiki. We can pick some moderators who can edit the page and I will get > > them > > > added so they can take care of it. We can also add the link to the FAQ to > > > the bottom of every email. > > > > > > 2) Some folks suggested that you either mark in the body or in the > > subject > > > something that indicates what you're talking about. Seems reasonable. We > > > could use some of the topics that were being suggested. [UX], > > [Enterprise], > > > [Data Services] [Announce], etc. We don't need to limit this, but by > > > following a convention of placing the general area of discussion, folks > > will > > > know if they're going to be capable of getting involved in the thread. > > The > > > more people follow this convention, the more efficient it will become. > > > > > > 3) We can get aggressive on the moderation. Rather than just scanning for > > > spam, moderators can actually look at the posts by new users and decide > > if > > > they meet the general criteria for asking a question. If they don't, the > > > moderator can reject the post and point the user to the forum FAQ which > > has > > > posting guidelines. > > > > > > 4) We can update the flexcoders FAQ (which is actually linked at the > > bottom > > > of every single post) to include the updated posting guidelines and > > remove > > > the common questions section so that the forum FAQ is only about forum > > > etiquette and the coding FAQ is about the actual problems. > > > > > > If this sounds OK then what we need are the two kinds of moderators: > > > > > > 1. moderators for the forum itself who are willing to really look at all > > > posts that are in moderation and analyze whether they should be passed > > > through. If it is a poorly formed question, the post should be rejected > > with > > > a pointer to the forum FAQ. > > > 2. moderators for the FAQ who can pay attention to common questions and > > > update the FAQ as appropriate. > > > > > > If we're all on board, send those moderators to me and we can get things > > set > > > up. And folks can start following the tagging convention instantly in the > > > meantime. > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Douglas Knudsen > > http://www.cubicleman.com > > this is my signature, like it? > > > > >
