On 11/3/09, Diez B. Roggisch <de...@nospam.web.de> wrote: > Daniel Fetchinson schrieb: >>>>>> If you have any suggestions, let me know -- this is a community >>>>>> effort! >>>>> Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community. >>>> When a community grows and consequently its needs also grow, how do >>>> you differentiate "natural growth" from "fragmenting the community"? >>>> >>>> Same question in another way: let's suppose Tim Peters sent the exact >>>> email the OP sent with the exact same website. Would you have >>>> responded to him the same way? >>> Most probably not - but then because Tim certainly would have discussed >>> this >>> move with peers from the community, if there is a need for this kind of >>> forum or not. >>> >>> Being from germany, I can say that we *have* this fragmentation, and >>> frankly: I don't like it. I prefer my communication via NNTP/ML, and not >>> with those visually rather noisy and IMHO suboptimal forums. >> >> If you prefer NNTP/ML, I'd suggest you pay attention to these channels >> only. BTW, I prefer ML also and I'm very happy with c.l.p. However >> that doesn't mean that I need to be hostile to other forms of >> communication and it doesn't mean that I need to discourage people >> from setting up other channels of communication for those folks who >> prefer them. > > Since when is the mere suggestion that fragmentation will occur and if > that's a desirable consequence is hostile? The OP is not bound to it, > and I also don't see the tone used by the two immediate answerers being > hostile. Paul might have been terse - but hostility looks different IMHO.
I was referring to this comment by Ben: "Suggestion: Please don't make efforts to fragment the community." This IMHO is hostile, because it presupposes that the mere goal of the OP is fragmenting the community, which is something negative, i.e. it contains negative prejudice. What I would have written in Ben's place: Have you considered the possibility that your website will further fragment the community? This wouldn't have been hostile, IMHO. > The OP *might* come to the conclusion that further fragmenting the > community isn't within his personal goals either. OTOH, he might also > simply think that once his forum gained traction, he can switch on the > google ads, and cash in. Which a forum announced by Tim Peters, run > under python.org wouldn't I'd say. > >> If new channels open up for others it will not make c.l.p any worse. > > It will, if they catch on. As some competent people will move away. Competent people will only move away if the website is great/fun/useful/etc. In which case we should welcome it, since something great/fun/useful/etc is a good thing. If it's not great/fun/useful/etc competent people will not move away, in which case c.l.p. will not be any worse as a result of launching the new website. > Again, this is the case in the german python scene, and it plain sucks. > We have a ML, a NG, and a forum. None of them is synchronized in any > way. We wanted to do this for ML and NG - but the guy responsible for > the ML can't be reached, or refuses to answer. Welcome to open source, the world of infinitely many forks, code variants, MLs, forums, NGs, websites, in other words, welcome to the bazaar! Cheers, Daniel > If we had only one source, fragmentation wouldn't occur, and the > competence would be bundled. That I personally prefer MLs and NGs > doesn't mean that I wouldn't turn to the forum if it was *the* way to > talk about Python. But as it stands, there are three kind of things, of > which I'm already subsribed to two - and am annoyed of people posting > questions in both of them. > > Now, I can't do anything about it in the sense that I can forbid it. But > questioning the move to create a new form of exchange (especially > something rather uninspired, in contrast to e.g. stackoverflow) I can. > >> If enough people like c.l.p. it will continue to be a good channel, if >> too many too good people switch to an online forum, well, in that case >> c.l.p. will cease to be great, but it won't be because of artificial >> fragmentation by somebody but because the people started to prefer >> online forums (words like "free market" come to mind :)) > > Yes. Or all of them suck equally. Free market again. I'm not against it, > but asking the OP if he really thinks the value of his forum outweighs > the risk of making existing fora worse is a valid question. Free speech, > one other nice free thing out there. > >> I generally not register on any online forum and will most probably >> not register on pyfora either. But I know for a fact that many people >> prefer forums over ML and why shouldn't those people be happy with the >> communication platform they like and why shouldn't they be given a >> chance to join the python community if the only reason they stayed >> away was that they didn't like c.l.p. for one reason or another? >> >>> E.g. it >>> requires much more effort to get to know what new discussions arose, as >>> well as following ongoing ones - because the interface lacks a >>> comprehensive overview of that, and features like "jump to next unread >>> article". >> >> These are perfectly legitimate reasons for you to not use online >> forums and stick to c.l.p. I do the same thing. But again, if an >> enthusiastic python community member wants to open new channels for >> those folks who like them, why should anyone be hostile to him/her? -- Psss, psss, put it down! - http://www.cafepress.com/putitdown -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
