All of this discussion points to one thing (IMHO); things are much easier handled as they are. No additional responsibilities for people to handle, no additional places to go for information, nothing lost or placed in the wrong place. i.e. A good example of the K.I.S.S. principal in action.
My vote is to just keep "keeping on" (as is). Bob FInch On Tuesday 15 July 2003 10:46 am, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote: > >>>>> "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.
