>>>>> "w" == warly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
w> - I agree that some people have various interests and are not
w> interested in such or such topics.
They can always filter on the [topic] strings to downgrade messages
they don't want to see. As for the bandwidth issue, if you ask me,
I'd say someone on 56k dialup who's participating in a project which
requires the routine download of 2.5Gb of ISO images probably knows
how to manage their bandwidth ;)
w> - I agree that multiple list will favor crosspost of people not
w> knowing where to ask.
It's always a fuzzy question with free software: Is the product
broken, or am I just misunderstanding something? This is especially
true for something as leading-edge addicted as Mandrake ;) -- every
new release contains revolutionary components (eg zeroconf) that are
not expected and not well documented online (ie, unknown to google) so
there's going to be confusion, even from old unix-hacks (like me) who
just missed the discussion.
But _we_ are supposed to be the experts: If we invite messages into
the cooker and someone posts an obvious installation/configuration
issue or an issue more appropriate to another list, maybe what we need
is a process to forward the message from here in the kitchen to
where-ever.
I'm not at all sure how that could work without twenty of us
forwarding the same email to the KDE team or whatever
here's a really crazy idea; maybe teams could appoint someone as their
cooker-watcher (keeping in mind that Watts' pots never Boyle'd) and we
parallel-distributed watchers could adopt a convention that when you
see a message belonging elsewhere, to post an empty followup with the
target group name as a [topic] in the subject line, for example, if we
see a message
Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists?
the cooker community can 'vote' it elsewhere by followups editing the
subject line (remember that the References: header keeps messages
threaded if your email software is suitably intelligent ;) so most
readers would create a thread that looked like
Subject: Re: [Cooker] split lists?
Subject: [cooker.list.admin]
Subject: [cooker.kde]
If you see someone has already 'tagged' an issue, you don't bother,
so we don't get long lists of "this belongs elsewhere" messages.
Using their normal email filtering, people interested in those
taxonomy terms would immediately see the empty followup, so all they
have to do is fetch the messages above that point in the thread.
of course, this would be _much_ easier if the cooker was a newsgroup :)
w> I think that the bugs comments are part of the general
w> discussion on the developement, and should be considered as
w> equivalent to cooker thread.
Totally agreed.
--
Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: office voice/fax: 01 519 4222723
Business Advantage through Community Software - http://teledyn.com
"what I need is a job that doesn't interfere with my work" -gary murphy
