Stephen Taylor wrote: > If like me, members find the "package", the > combination of hosting site and price a good deal. But > hesitate to participate because the reward for making > a mistake or asking before reading the docs is not > shared laughter or "look it up in XXX and if you don't > find the answer, let us know" It is criticism or > technical problems because (I surmise) after X number > of errors, it stops working. > > Examples: > > J. Settino's discovery that his experience was not > enough and it was his problem. >
To be fair, the issue here is unwillingness to read documentation. Many hosting services use entirely standard tools that most customers will be familiar with, but, IMO, our tools are superior and worth learning. (Not to mention that all of the "standard" tools are either insecure [for our setting] or limited/cumbersome.) We also have the creation of tools with lower learning curves (but less "power") relatively high on our queue of things to do once we have our new server set-up mostly done. > My blunders when I joined and asked for help. > Could you remind us of exactly what you think went wrong and what should have happened instead? > The bounced e-mails I never received -- until I asked. > Are you suggesting that the admins implement some far-reaching program to detect when e-mail to members is bouncing? I really don't understand how this example is constructive. > The problem I created yesterday with a bad .forward > file. I fixed it, it tests okay but I'm missing mail. > Anyone editing a .forward file manually ought to realize that he can screw up his own mail (and luckily no one else's!) arbitrarily, and so he should take responsibility for that. > The lack of response (1) to my h-discuss e-mail full > of suggestions; some would make a better co-op. > I find most of your messages hard to decipher. Your social norms seem quite different from those of most members, and I expect most others feel like I do that it takes a lot of effort to understand the real intent of your messages. You may have good ideas, but the question is if a person could do more good for the co-op by working on some concrete implementation instead. > The failure of the moderator system. Mail to > hcoop-misc, get warning cause address is unknown; get > nothing more and no sign of correction. > At some point, I think there was an explanation of this on the page we asked every new member to read. I'm not sure if that was preserved through recent wiki refactoring, but I think I've now added sufficient explanation to this section: http://wiki.hcoop.net/MemberManual/GettingStarted/AccountCreated#head-54b491558181e10314c557fd1c683826baa4e36a At the same time, the rate at which mwolson is able to check the moderation queue today is unacceptably low, IMO. This isn't meant to be a criticism of mwolson, as he's already doing us all a great favor by agreeing to handle moderation. Luckily, this is a task that is quite easy to farm out to a trustworthy member without any serious security consequences. Would anyone like to volunteer to moderate the hcoop-* lists? We should try to find a person who goes through the moderation queues almost every day. > The wiki. To me, it's a brainstorming, organzing, etc. > tool. Response I got said it's for technical data. > I don't think you got any response like that. The real problem seems to be that your question was unclear, and you interpreted lack of answers to your "real" question as assertions that what you meant to ask for was not allowed, which wasn't the case. _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
