Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On Mar 27, 2007, at 11:58, Ben Scott wrote: For example: I cannot help but note that this thread really has very little to do with Subject Lines on the Mailing list, and *never did*. I'm going to play the I don't get it card, and it has to do with Subject Lines. I set my mailer to organize messages by thread, and if I'm not interested in the subject line I ignore the messages. There are three threads today I'm not going to read. When I'm done reading GNHLUG mail for the day, I mark all as read and don't look back. If somebody wanted to fork the thread and didn't feel like starting a new one, oh well. So, I don't get it. BTW, mailman has a feature called 'topics'. I have no idea what they actually do. -Bill - Bill McGonigle, Owner Work: 603.448.4440 BFC Computing, LLC Home: 603.448.1668 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cell: 603.252.2606 http://www.bfccomputing.com/Page: 603.442.1833 New Blog: http://blog.bfccomputing.com/ VCard: http://bfccomputing.com/vcard/bill.vcf ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux
Maybe it's time to revive the we need a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list to send all our off-topic posts to thread. Or maybe Ben can grep -v all the messages with subjects matching ^OT: out of the mailing list digests. Although the density of truly Linux technical topics on this list is low, perhaps the solution is to start a gnhlug-tech list rather than trying to change the personality of this list. I liken this like to a bunch of people gathering in a park to discuss the future of the Red Socks. The threads run for very technical analysis of trading strategies to whether the commercials on the broadcast are funny. I don't mind the OT threads; they are easy enough to delete. I have also found a number of OT threads valuable in putting the history, personalities, and technical problems in perspective. They have also opened new topics of interest. I know Ric a little bit, and I think we share a delight in getting deeply into the technical details of things. The very nature of detail seems to preclude general interest. Not only are there few people able or willing to delve deeply into complex detail, the technical target of a specific discussion will interest only a few of that small number. If computer science were my thing, I would offer my services as a contentious, curmudgeon, devils advocate and iconoclastic contributer to challenge and be challenged on a gnhlug-tech list. But, alas, my once top-notch digital design and hardware interface programming skills are now way out of date. These days its thermal physics, nanowires, picoampere instrumentation, space telescopes, and the like. So, as the politicians say, Ah feel yo pain, but I don't have much to recommend. Jim Kuzdrall ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
From the viewpoint of one who pontificates a lot on the list, I have also the pain of those who just want technical information, and do not want to join in the greater discussions, but this issue is not just technical' versus non-technical. For example, recently people kept using the subject line Re: mythtvfest long after the topic had turned away from the Fest and even from MythTV, but I did not want to miss any information or questions having to do with the upcoming MythtvFest. Every time I saw MythtvFest in the subject line I felt duty-bound to read it, even if that email had nothing to do with the fest at all. If the respondents had changed the subject line after the topic changed, I could have ignored that subject if I wanted to ignore it, but this takes discipline, and I admit that I am occasionally guilty of this myself. Perhaps the discuss list should be broken down into two parts: discuss-tech discuss-social with discuss simply being the union of the two. I fear that this would isolate some of our best minds from legitimate discussions, but that should be their decision. maddog ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On 3/27/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Every time I saw MythtvFest in the subject line I felt duty-bound to read it ... Yah, I do try to change the subject line when forking a thread. The problem is, most people don't -- they just keep hitting Reply to all all day long. It's worse when I try to change the subject line, but others don't, so the thread continues under two subjects. It's worse still when multiple people try to change the subject line at once, so now we've got multiple alternative subjects, plus the people still using the original subject line. ~sigh~ ... this takes discipline ... Something people don't seem to be good at, in general, I've noticed. Perhaps the discuss list should be broken down into two parts: Yah, this has been proposed here before. By me, even. There are a problems with it: (1) Where to draw the line? Politics and everything else? Technical and non-technical? What's technical and what isn't? Who decides? Social? What about politics? I might like hearing about opinions on TV shows others like, but want to avoid the ever-popular evil gov'mint discussions. (1)(a) What about those who insist on ramming their personal agendas down everyone's throats? And where do we draw the line *there*? When does it stop being a preference and start being an agenda? (2) What about discussions which touch both subjects? Where does that go? And most of all: (3) This requires just as much, if not more, discipline than changing the subject line. If we can't get people to mind the subject line, how can we get them to manage this? discuss-tech discuss-social with discuss simply being the union of the two. I'm not sure how well that would work in practice, especially given the reply all and discipline problems previously described. I suspect we'd see most threads ending up being cross-posted to both lists. Any which way we slice it, if we want to go in this direction, we need to designate some topic police. Which I'm okay with doing, if that's what people want, but given past discussions on this meta-topic, I'm not sure it's what people want. (Currently, the only real rule we have (and it just came into being yesterday, per me) is the banning of instructions on how to perform illegal activities, or pointers to same. That's a legal shit-magnet I just don't want on a server I personally own.) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On 3/27/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/27/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps the discuss list should be broken down into two parts: Yah, this has been proposed here before. By me, even. There are a I think if we look at the archives, the largest discussion topic would be over off topic posts and splitting the list. As you point out, getting people to change the subject line is difficult enough, let alone responding to two lists. Since two lists have been proposed over and over again but not acted on, why not try it if it doesn't increase the admin work load? At the least, it should cut down on the debate. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On 3/27/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do not think that the discussion of politics by itself is reasonable in any gnhlug list. From time to time an aside done in support of some point about Linux, but nothing about parties and their people. That should rapidly be rejected. I don't recall that we've *ever* had anyone go so far as to start campaigning for their preferred candidate. The worst was some brief Bush-bashing. But we have had several long, involved threads about mostly political issues. Copyright issues. Taxes. Free speech issues. Taxes. Effectiveness of voting. Taxes. Patents. Tollbooths. And so on. People have argued that any of these might impact us, as NH Linux users, so they're on-topic. Given that we don't have a list charter, it's hard to call *anything* off-topic. The real sticking point is where one half the group feels one way strongly and the other half feels the other way (or neutral) strongly. I think that should be put on discuss-social. If people have strong technical views, I could read those almost the entire day Okay, again, what if someone else doesn't agree with where you draw your own personal line? For example, we (and by we I mean me) have spent hours endlessly debating the finer points of, say, DNS implementation or security policies. It may be that most of the membership really does not care. So where does that go? Meanwhile, a brief message or two on an upcoming TV special may be well-appreciated by the readership of the -tech list, no? What about the occasional astronomy-related message? Does that go to -tech (it's not Linux) or -social (but still technical)? I'm not just arguing to be argumentative (that's room 12A); these are questions that would need to be answered for anything like a list charter to be drawn up. ... (and then ignore them later with the proper subject line). Your parenthetical remark is one of my main points. We still have the off-topic, endless debate, and discipline issues. Moving the traffic around doesn't make those issues go away. (2) What about discussions which touch both subjects? Where does that go? Gentle guidance from the group. If gentle guidance works, wouldn't gentle guidance from the group be sufficient to just tell people to take it off-list? Or just plain shut up? :-) should be picked as carefully as the first subject line. I know from experience that the best subject line in the world can still end up completely off-topic in about three replies. I suspect you do, too. :) Humorous illustration: http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/pictures/ThreadHijack/thread_direction.gif You could join discuss and get both. What happens when someone posts to -social, but I (subscribed to -discuss) reply to -discuss? We could try it, and if it does not work what have we really lost? Depends on the transition grief. For example, who do we subscribe to which list? Or do we start both lists empty? I am actually not that displeased with the current arrangement ... Me neither. What I actually think might be best would be just the occasional nudge (from *anyone*) suggesting, Hey, you two seem the only two people interested in this discussion, how about you take it off-list? People who ignore nudges can be nudged harder. With a 2x4, as needed. But I am concerned because there may be people who leave the discuss mailing list because of the larger number of emails they get the whole day. It's not just quantity of mail, though. Like you point out, many messages on a topic you, personally, are interested in, you will gladly read. But even a couple messages on, say, tax law reform might make your eyes glaze over. Other people's mileage may vary. We're trying to be all things to all people. -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On 3/27/07, Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since two lists have been proposed over and over again but not acted on, why not try it if it doesn't increase the admin work load? *Because* it has been proposed over and over again, but not acted on. It hasn't been acted on because nothing like consensus has ever been reached. At the least, it should cut down on the debate. I'm not even sure about that much (see my concerns about what's appropriates for which list). -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On 3/27/07, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: should be picked as carefully as the first subject line. I know from experience that the best subject line in the world can still end up completely off-topic in about three replies. I suspect you do, too. :) For example: I cannot help but note that this thread really has very little to do with Subject Lines on the Mailing list, and *never did*. Oh, the irony, it burns. ;-) -- Ben ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
I don't recall that we've *ever* had anyone go so far as to start campaigning for their preferred candidate. The worst was some brief Bush-bashing. But we have had several long, involved threads about mostly political issues. Copyright issues. I think that copyright issues and software (both free and otherwise) are decent topics for the social list. Again, with a decent Subject line you could avoid them if you wished. And perhaps we should be more forceful in helping people to use digests, where these things have been debated beforenot to escape the issue, but to bring the prospective poster up to speed with where we have been. Taxes. Perhaps someone can draw an analogy where Taxes (other than the Microsoft Tax, or import duties) have an impact on free software. If they can't, then maybe we should not be discussing it. If they can, then probably on the social list. Free speech issues. As relating to Free Software? Social Taxes. Effectiveness of voting. Technical standpoints (encryption, authentication, logging, armoring, verification) - technical Social standpoints (closed vs open code) - tech And in this particular case, perhaps a note to announce stating the issue and where and what aspects will be discussed. Taxes. Uhhh, Ben, could you please go to the archives and look up Taxes? Patents Again, both technical and social issues. Which are being discussed? For example, known ways of implementing mp3 without invoking the royalty patent payment? Technical Why should we have to pay royalty payments for a standard? Social Tollbooths. And so on. People have argued that any of these might impact us, as NH Linux users, so they're on-topic. And Global warming and child pornography, but I have not seen long discussions of them on the list either. For example, we (and by we I mean me) have spent hours endlessly debating the finer points of, say, DNS implementation or security policies. It may be that most of the membership really does not care. So where does that go? Ben, I could listen to you argue the finer parts of DNS implementation for days. Well, maybe hours. At least a few minutes. Then, I assume that I would ignore that subject line. Or at least emails from Ben Scott on that subject line. Meanwhile, a brief message or two on an upcoming TV special may be well-appreciated by the readership of the -tech list, no? gnhlug-announce What about the occasional astronomy-related message? Does that go to -tech (it's not Linux) or -social (but still technical)? astronomy in general? Aren't there mailing lists that deal with that? Aren't you subscribed to them? A cool FOSS astronomy application? gnhlug-announce...one time, with a pointer to where it will be discussed. I'm not just arguing to be argumentative (that's room 12A); these are questions that would need to be answered for anything like a list charter to be drawn up. ... (and then ignore them later with the proper subject line). Your parenthetical remark is one of my main points. We still have the off-topic, endless debate, and discipline issues. Moving the traffic around doesn't make those issues go away. (2) What about discussions which touch both subjects? Where does that go? Gentle guidance from the group. If gentle guidance works, wouldn't gentle guidance from the group be sufficient to just tell people to take it off-list? Or just plain shut up? :-) should be picked as carefully as the first subject line. I know from experience that the best subject line in the world can still end up completely off-topic in about three replies. I suspect you do, too. :) Humorous illustration: http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/pictures/ThreadHijack/thread_direction.gif You could join discuss and get both. What happens when someone posts to -social, but I (subscribed to -discuss) reply to -discuss? We could try it, and if it does not work what have we really lost? Depends on the transition grief. For example, who do we subscribe to which list? Or do we start both lists empty? I am actually not that displeased with the current arrangement ... Me neither. What I actually think might be best would be just the occasional nudge (from *anyone*) suggesting, Hey, you two seem the only two people interested in this discussion, how about you take it off-list? People who ignore nudges can be nudged harder. With a 2x4, as needed. If it were only two it would be easier, but if there are two arguing and ten who are mildly interested, it becomes harder. And often the 2x4 leaves splinters, even if not intentional. But I am concerned because there may be people who leave the discuss mailing list because of the larger number of emails they get the whole day. It's not just quantity of mail, though. Like you point out, many messages on a topic you, personally, are interested in, you will
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
For example: I cannot help but note that this thread really has very little to do with Subject Lines on the Mailing list, and *never did*. Oh, the irony, it burns. ;-) I disagree. This thread has to do with being easily able to determine the basic content of the email, and it was originally suggested that making sure that subject lines matched up with the message and changing them to match. We are now discussing other ways of doing the same thing, but I am still incorporating the concept of using apt subject lines. You are off talking about taxes and toll booths. I don't think it is the irony that is burning. md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Ric Werme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or maybe I'll give up on the Linux discussion mailing list and just go to the PySig meetings. Ric, you are a gentleman and a scholar. :) :) -Bill ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux
Seriously... Yet despite three decades of descriptions of [mailing-list dysfunction], it is often treated by designers as a mere side-effect, as if each eruption [...] was surprising or inexplicable. The Tragedy of the Conversational Commons In the case of mailing lists (and, again, other shared conversational spaces), the commonly held resource is communal attention. The group as a whole has an incentive to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high and the conversation informative, even when contentious. Individual users, though, have an incentive to maximize expression of their point of view, as well as maximizing the amount of communal attention they receive. -From Clay Shirky's Writings About the Internet, upon which I rely when a temptation strikes to fix the list. I believe that Shirky demonstrates that fixing a mailing list is not possible. Letting go makes it easier to relax and enjoy... Doesn't it? http://shirky.com/writings/group_user.html ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Dividing The List Considered Harmful [Was: Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]]
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Ben Scott wrote: [...] I'm not just arguing to be argumentative (that's room 12A); these are questions that would need to be answered for anything like a list charter to be drawn up. ... (and then ignore them later with the proper subject line). Your parenthetical remark is one of my main points. We still have the off-topic, endless debate, and discipline issues. Moving the traffic around doesn't make those issues go away. [...] You could join discuss and get both. What happens when someone posts to -social, but I (subscribed to -discuss) reply to -discuss? We could try it, and if it does not work what have we really lost? Depends on the transition grief. For example, who do we subscribe to which list? Or do we start both lists empty? I have been through this a few times in the past, with different groups, where the decision was eventually made to fragment the list into multiple lists with more focused charters. I have, to date, never seen it work well. With one exception, all of the mailing lists I have seen fragmented this way have either reverted back to a single main list (sometimes with a separate, often moderated list for announcments, like we have), or gone away entirely. That one exception had strongly focused charters, very clear lines on what topics were appropriate on which lists, and a large team of volunteer list-cops (over 50 when I was in charge of managing them) to keep things on track and ban chronic offenders. They did not have the proposed bad idea of subscribing each of the sub-lists to another list to form a combined list. Even there, the off-topic posts remained, and there was the additional problem of posts being sent to the wrong list, or crossposted to multiple lists. They stuck with it, at the cost of enormous volunteer churn, and lost a large chunk of their membership, myself included, when the transition grief was still increasing more than a year after the actual transition was made. I *STRONGLY* believe that this sort of change would be bad for GNHLUG in the long run. Consider how successful the various mailing lists for the local chapters have been. Consider how troublesome trying to keep the job postings on the gnhlug-jobs list has been. Consider how successful the linux cafe list, created in response to exactly this complaint back in 2005, was. Does anyone really think this particular division will be more succesful than either of those? If GNHLUG does choose to fragment the list into -social and -tech, please DO NOT try to create a combined 'discuss' list that is subscribed to both, the problems with people replying to the wrong places would be enormous. People who want both can subscribe to both easily enough. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP KeyID 0x57C3430B Holder of Past Knowledge CS, O- Remind me again what it is called when one keeps trying the same thing expecting different results? ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux
Bill, I believe that Shirky demonstrates that fixing a mailing list is not possible. Letting go makes it easier to relax and enjoy... Doesn't it? We fixed the list at least twice before: o the addition of announce o the addition of gnhlug-org where, since I have asked Ted to add this topic to the schedule of the next meeting, I will be taking my discussion of this topic. Warmest regards, md ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Dividing The List Considered Harmful [Was: Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]]
My $0.02: If a couple of guys are posting something you're tired of hearing about on the list, and you don't want to do some sort of filtering to drop it... send all those discussing it on list an OFF-LIST polite note Isn't that sort of offtopic? The chatter's drowning out the Linux talk. I don't know about you guys, but I'd get embarassed (assuming it wasn't obviously on-topic, like discussion of how well Linux ran on a laptop I was considering buying) and drop it. Anyone who doesn't get the hint will undoubtedly be jumped on on-list anyway. In my experience, technical solutions to something that isn't a technical problem are unlikely to work, just as political solutions to technical problems are unlikely to work. --DTVZ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Dividing The List Considered Harmful [Was: Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]]
That's the strongest argument I've heard against splitting. Thank you for changing my opinion. Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment :-) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
One of the things we've been trying to do on the BLU list is when someone posts a job messages, they put [JOB] at the beginning of the subject. Another convention a few people have been using is [OT] for off-topic discussions. Additionally, it is not good form to hijack threads. basically, IMHO, the GNHLUG is low volume enough that it probably would not need to be split into 3 lists, as Maddog suggested, though it would not be difficult to create the 2 additional lists, and use the main discuss list as a target of both. -- Jerry Feldman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Boston Linux and Unix user group http://www.blu.org PGP key id:C5061EA9 PGP Key fingerprint:053C 73EC 3AC1 5C44 3E14 9245 FB00 3ED5 C506 1EA9 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:50:56PM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: basically, IMHO, the GNHLUG is low volume enough that it probably would not need to be split into 3 lists, as Maddog suggested, though it would not be difficult to create the 2 additional lists, and use the main discuss list as a target of both. Say you have three sub-lists: gnhlug-chat, gnhlug-politics, and gnhlug-tech. If gnhlug-discuss is subscribed to all three, postings to any of the lists also get posted to -discuss. All of these lists are restricted to only allow posting from subscribed addresses, to cut down on abuse. So far, so good, that *seems* to be what we want. Joe User finds GNHLUG, and decides that he wants to read all of the mail, so he takes the shortcut and subscribes only to -discuss Ben posts a message to gnhlug-tech. Joe User tries to reply to list. One of two things happens: Joe's mail client reply to gnhlug-discuss. Ben never sees Joe's reply, because Ben is only subscribed to gnhlug-tech. Joe's mail client tries to reply to gnhlug-tech. Ben never sees Joe's reply, because Joe's mail is stuck in an approval queue for unsubscribed postings. Joe has a question, which he posts to gnhlug-discuss since that is what he has subscribed to. Unfortunately for Joe, most of the GNHLUG community never sees his question as they have subscribed to the sub-lists they are interested in. Everyone loses. If we are going to break up gnhlug-discuss into smaller lists, we need to just do it, and make everyone subscribe to whatever lists they want. Trying to have it both ways with sub-lists and a combined list is just a recipe for disaster. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP KeyID 0x57C3430B Holder of Past Knowledge CS, O- Profanity is the inevitable linguistic crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker. Bruce Sherrod ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
mike ledoux wrote: On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 01:50:56PM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: basically, IMHO, the GNHLUG is low volume enough that it probably would not need to be split into 3 lists, as Maddog suggested, though it would not be difficult to create the 2 additional lists, and use the main discuss list as a target of both. Say you have three sub-lists: gnhlug-chat, gnhlug-politics, and gnhlug-tech. If gnhlug-discuss is subscribed to all three, postings to any of the lists also get posted to -discuss. All of these lists are restricted to only allow posting from subscribed addresses, to cut down on abuse. So far, so good, that *seems* to be what we want. ... Of course, none of this would be a problem if we were using newsgroups (ala Usenet). Most of the news readers support kill lists (for authors, subjects, ...) which makes it easy to ignore certain threads and/or authors. And there's good support for news/mail gateways. Another possibility is to use Mailman topics. Of course, if either of these avenues are chosen, then there remains the (for some reason) insurmountable task of implementing them. --Bruce ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]
On 3/27/07, Bruce Dawson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, none of this would be a problem if we were using newsgroups None of this is a problem if you're using mail software which supports thread killing, either. Which I do. I'm not sure where that fits into the argument, but I'm sure it does somewhere... -- B ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Dividing The List Considered Harmful [Was: Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]]
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:45:49PM -0400, mike ledoux wrote: I have been through this a few times in the past, with different groups, where the decision was eventually made to fragment the list into multiple lists with more focused charters. I have, to date, never seen it work well. With one exception, all of the mailing lists I have seen fragmented this way have either reverted back to a single main list (sometimes with a separate, often moderated list for announcments, like we have), or gone away entirely. That one exception had strongly focused charters, very clear lines on what topics were appropriate on which lists, and a large team of volunteer list-cops (over 50 when I was in charge of managing them) to keep things on track and ban chronic offenders. Possibly true for dividing a list into specialty lists. OTOH for just the narrowly focused goal of trying to contain chitchat, I've seen it it work well, and I'm on lists now where it works well. it being: there's a main list (or perhaps one or more lists) for on-topic stuff, and an off-topic list for chitchat and jabber. But I think I'll agree with you that it only works well if it's made to work. One component is that it's reasonably easy to tell what's off-topic for a non-chat list (like, say, how do I address this issue at the shell prompt?). And really, a lot of off-topic stuff is easy to spot, even when being on-topic is hard to specify. Another component is having the list-mom make the call, step in and say take it to off-topic or else -- it might take a short while to train everyone, but smart people can deal with it. mailman [topics] are a substitute; I don't care for that, but really, it's just a different way to separate traffic, and at least with topics you don't get some of the overlap issues that you get with separate lists. If you've already got separate specialized lists, topics are less useful. Subscribing one list to another is, IMHO, not a good idea. Oh, and back to a previous subject... simply changing the subject text isn't really enough. When a threat mutates, you really want a new one, which means getting rid of the References links. Threading mail readers don't care about the subject text, they link threads together by those references. Not everyone cares, but for those who do, it makes a huge difference whether you simply change the subject or start a new thread. mm (my opinionated.info) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Dividing The List Considered Harmful [Was: Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]]
If anybody is tallying votes, my vote is: 1: don't split the mailing list. 2: encourage members of this list to stay on topic in the way that we always have. 3: treat members like adults 4: expect members to be adults If you have been on this list for any amount of time and you have a brain, you will know that the group generally frowns upon posts that basically extol some political viewpoint. We as a group aren't too bad at telling other members of this list to not post to the list with such political topics. The current brouhaha came into existence when one of our members did something new -- he posted regarding an activity that has dubious legality. So, let's just solve this problem by all agreeing that such topics are verboten. Personally, I think that splitting the list would be a lot of work and a big hassle. I also think that it would be a disaster, because I can envision a lot of traffic on each split list that read please post your fine message to the other list. I think that the S/N ratio of this list is OK, which is why I continue to participate. Regards, --kevin -- GnuPG ID: B280F24E Never could stand that dog. alumni.unh.edu!kdc -- Tom Waits ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Dividing The List Considered Harmful [Was: Re: Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]]
During and immediately after the Sept 11 attacks, the US Air Traffic Control system was faced with an unprecedented challenge: Respond to a concerted effort to use passenger airliners as flying bombs, while at the same time grounding all civilian air traffic. This had never been done before. There were no procedures for it. Most everything had to be made up on the spot. Afterwards, the FAA conducted a review. They considered creating formal procedures for such an event in the future. They decided not to. They concluded any such situation would be too complicated for formal rules, and that they were better off trusting their people to make the right decisions. -- DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in the above are the personal opinions of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views or policy of GNHLUG, the author's employer, or any other person or organization. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux
I found one several years ago, but dropped off after long stretches of off-topic posts. I think I found a new one last year that includes a digest mode, but lately it's been flooded about IP and other issues that are outside of Linux and even the digests are getting annoying. Ah well, I have the freedom to be free of annoying mail lists. As a public service, maybe we can bring the discussion back to Linux, you know, let's create world peace by sending Linux to the cradle of civilization. Or have AOL send copies of Ubuntu out to all the breeders so the abortion debate falters due to lack of fetuses. (Note that helps stop global warming.) Or start a underclocking movement to run efficient Linux more efficiently and displace lesser OSes in the marketplace. (And stop global warming.) Or maybe I'll ask about getting a video recording I made of a bail hearing uploaded to YouTube. (It's just of a deadbeat dad who has custody of his daughter and is in jail for non-payment of child support even though he's broke and the NH Supreme Court decreed that inability to pay is not reason enough to be sent to jail.) (Hey, didn't I see a message about changing copyright law? This is just as much on topic, unless I upload the video from MacOS, but that's really BSD so that's close enough) Or maybe I'll give up on the Linux discussion mailing list and just go to the PySig meetings. -Ric Werme ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux
From: Ric Werme [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 21:02:00 -0400 (EDT) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] of off-topic posts. I think I found a new one last year that includes a digest mode, but lately it's been flooded about IP and other issues that are outside of Linux and even the digests are getting annoying. Ah well, Maybe it's time to revive the we need a [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list to send all our off-topic posts to thread. Or maybe Ben can grep -v all the messages with subjects matching ^OT: out of the mailing list digests. To your credit, there has been an ENORMOUS amount of traffic on the list lately--far more than normal. As for me? Well, I just HAD to add one more message to the mix. ;) ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
