Tollef Fog Heen
> | Personally, I'd be more likely to see the wnpp mails if they weren't
> | in amongst the rest of devel. I'm not sure whether or not I'd stop
> | reading devel again if that happened.
>
> Am I understanding you correctly in that the wnpp mails are a prime
> reason for you readi
Hi, Manoj:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009 02:10:04 Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> > And really, if some logical conclusion is so broken that this
> >> > brokeness has its own name, then ev
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 15:25:30 -0500
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> These attacks on people, as opposed to discussion of what they
> said, is one of the major reasons discussion threads devolve into
> unproductive chaos.
It takes more than one person to produce chaos.
> We should be managin
]] MJ Ray
| Tollef Fog Heen
| > you seem to think that moving wnpp traffic off -devel would be useful to
| > make -devel more attractive? Why do you think so?
| >
| > I think moving the traffic off would just mean fewer people would care
| > to review the wnpp mails and we'd be worse off overa
* Manoj Srivastava [090819 15:52]:
> Well, if you are trying to just decide whether a post is
> acceptable or not, this would be fine. But what if you are also trying
> to keep the discussion on track by refuting logic errors? and not going
> down that path?
I personally think the best
Le mercredi 19 août 2009 à 08:33 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > You can’t de-humanize a discussion to the point of considering what has
> > been written without considering who wrote it.
>
> Sure. You might think the other guy is an as
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 07:28:09PM +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
> > Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
> > mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
> > lists.
>
> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to us
On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Manoj Srivastava [090818 22:42]:
>> On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>> > * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
>> >> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
>> >> those logical fallacies?
>> >
>> > I think succi
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:34:37AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> What proportion of devel is wnpp email?
Roughly 20%, based on rough statistics over first half of 2009.
Michael
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact list
On Wed, Aug 19 2009, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mardi 18 août 2009 à 19:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
>> I would say it is attacking the character or motives of a person
>> who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
>
> You can’t de-humanize a discussion to the point of consi
MJ Ray writes:
> "Bernhard R. Link"
> > * Ben Finney [090819 00:42]:
> > > Your distinction is lost on me; pointing out that someone has
> > > presented a logical fallacy *is* saying what is wrong. That we
> > > have succinct labels with well-established meanings serves to more
> > > quickly co
Le mercredi 19 août 2009 à 13:53 +0200, Bernhard R. Link a écrit :
> Another speciality of that that seems to have gained momentum in the
> last time (or perhaps I just cannot bear it as much as before), is
> people invoking "bikeshadding".
> Saying "I think this part makes no difference and there
"Bernhard R. Link"
> [1] And as you gave no facts and just called names, you are sure you
> are not meaning
> "I do not understand what you are talking about and cannot assess if it
> is something important" instead?
This is exactly the sort of personalisation of discussions which
should really n
* MJ Ray [090819 12:43]:
> As I've written before, I think that some of the bigger debian lists
> would be better if *someone* decided when the discussion has gone too
> far or off-topic and acted on it (putting a thread on mod-hold and
> just slowing the discussion, for example). As a project gr
"Bernhard R. Link"
> * Ben Finney [090819 00:42]:
> > Your distinction is lost on me; pointing out that someone has presented
> > a logical fallacy *is* saying what is wrong. That we have succinct
> > labels with well-established meanings serves to more quickly communicate
> > what is wrong, whic
Tollef Fog Heen
> you seem to think that moving wnpp traffic off -devel would be useful to
> make -devel more attractive? Why do you think so?
>
> I think moving the traffic off would just mean fewer people would care
> to review the wnpp mails and we'd be worse off overall. I don't have
> any
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:41:34PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> At the end some possible changes were proposed:
>
> * Defining On-Topicness more sharply, e.g.
>
> * Packaging Issues which pertain to more than one package
>
> * Non-packaging Development of Debian
>
> * Reconsider CCs
>
>
* Ben Finney [090819 00:42]:
> Your distinction is lost on me; pointing out that someone has presented
> a logical fallacy *is* saying what is wrong. That we have succinct
> labels with well-established meanings serves to more quickly communicate
> what is wrong, which I would think is pleasing to
* Manoj Srivastava [090818 22:42]:
> On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> >> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
> >> those logical fallacies?
> >
> > I think succinct terms help not at all here. Once there is a succin
Le mardi 18 août 2009 à 19:10 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> I would say it is attacking the character or motives of a person
> who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself.
You can’t de-humanize a discussion to the point of considering what has
been written without considering who
Hi,
when pressing "send" for my last mail I noticed this mail went to -project@
and not -devel@ and thought that this is to me one of the "bigger problems"
with those two lists, that it's relativly hard to distinguish when to post
to -project and when to -devel...
Not sure how to address this
Hi,
On Mittwoch, 19. August 2009, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> you seem to think that moving wnpp traffic off -devel would be useful to
> make -devel more attractive? Why do you think so?
this question AFAIK still stands..
> I think moving the traffic off would just mean fewer people would care
> t
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Paul Wise wrote:
> Also, how about the following addition to the next edition of DeveloperNews?
>
> === debian-devel and ITPs ===
>
> At DebConf9 there was a discussion about making the debian-devel list
> more useful. Towards that end, here is a quick reminder of the
> recom
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Ben Finney wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
> > * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> > > Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when
> > > challenging those logical fallacies?
> >
> > I think succinct terms help not at all here. Once there is a succinct
> > te
]] Michael Banck
Hi,
| Yes, I know. But due to it getting all the bug traffic, it is not very
| inviting to people just interested in reviewing ITPs/get notified about
| ITAs/Os. I should have suggested a different name, or moving the
| current -wnnp traffic elsewhere first.
|
| However, ther
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
> could possibly make it more attractive.
...
> * Maybe split off WNPP Traffic to a new -wnpp list?
...
> The other discussed item was about ITPs. It turned out that roughl
Manoj Srivastava writes:
> In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes
> the argument, but whether the argument is valid.
Often, there are more-relevant questions: whether the argument belongs
at all in the specific forum where it was presented, or whether the form
of
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > And really, if some logical conclusion is so broken that this brokeness
>> > has its own name, then everybody should be able to see it.
>
>> This is a nice theory, but in rea
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > These attacks on people, as opposed to discussion of what
> > they said, is one of the major reasons discussion threads devolve
> > into unproductive chaos. We should be managing to police dis
Michael Banck writes:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed, leaving logical fallacies unchallenged does [more]
> > to harm the discussion than pointing them out and trying to bring
> > the thread back to a logical discussion; and leaving ad homi
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Allowing these logical fallacies to stand, and not refuting
>> them, lead to a discussion that goes nowhere, or floats off into sub
>> optimal directions if not scotched in th
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:25:30PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > And really, if some logical conclusion is so broken that this brokeness
> > has its own name, then everybody should be able to see it.
> This is a nice theory, but in reality one does see people arging
> against the per
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 03:17:55PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Allowing these logical fallacies to stand, and not refuting
> them, lead to a discussion that goes nowhere, or floats off into sub
> optimal directions if not scotched in the bud.
>
> Indeed, leaving logical fall
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> > Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when
> > challenging those logical fallacies?
>
> I think succinct terms help not at all here. Once there is a succinct
> term 90% of their use is name-calling.
You apparently pe
Le mardi 18 août 2009 à 15:25 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
> These attacks on people, as opposed to discussion of what they
> said, is one of the major reasons discussion threads devolve into
> unproductive chaos. We should be managing to police discussion better,
> and the first st
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> But really, the divergence from the discussion happened earlier,
> when the discussion degenerated into name calling (which is what ad
> hominem attacks are), or strawman attacks, which tend to derail the
> discussion by standing up irrelevant positions and argi
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
>> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>>
>> > Perhaps there is a way to [???] discourage all meta-discussion or
>> > mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
>> > lists.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a better wa
On Tue, Aug 18 2009, Leo \"costela\" Antunes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ben Finney wrote:
>> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
>>> mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
>>> lists.
>>
>> Perhaps you have a better wa
* Ben Finney [090818 11:28]:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
> > Perhaps there is a way to [???] discourage all meta-discussion or
> > mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
> > lists.
>
> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
> those log
Hi,
Ben Finney wrote:
> "Bernhard R. Link" writes:
>
>> Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
>> mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
>> lists.
>
> Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
> those logical falla
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Michael Banck writes:
>
> I think the most effective way of tackling this would be if we could
> somehow reassure people that the loudest voice isn't going to carry the
> day in discussions of project technical direction. I think the fear that
> if one doesn't keep rebuttin
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 12:44:14PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
>
> > at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
> > could possibly make it more attractive.
>
> Was this recorded (I can't find it in the initial video rele
"Bernhard R. Link" writes:
> Perhaps there is a way to […] discourage all meta-discussion or
> mentioning of "fallacy", "ad-hominem" or "strawman" on the other
> lists.
Perhaps you have a better way of succinct terms to use when challenging
those logical fallacies? Surely you're not saying you w
* Michael Banck [090817 23:42]:
> Regarding CCs, it was hightlighted that the current list conduct
> explicitely says (since a short while ago) people should refrain from
> complaining about CCs on-list and do this privately. Further discussion
> made clear that most of the people present might c
On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
> could possibly make it more attractive.
Was this recorded (I can't find it in the initial video release)?
> * Reconsider CCs
...
> Regarding CCs, it was hightlighted tha
Michael Banck writes:
> Another important discussion was about dealing with big and repetetive
> threads. Most people seemed to agree that those threads are a problem
> and it was suggested to mail the involved people privately and ask them
> to reconsider mailing the same arguments multiple tim
Hi,
at Debconf9, there was a BoF about the debian-devel list and how we
could possibly make it more attractive.
At first some small research was presented on what other
projects/distributions (mostly Ubuntu, Gentoo, Fedora, OpenSUSE and
GNOME) are doing, the slides are here:
https://penta.debcon
47 matches
Mail list logo
