Doug, I have few from the list in "high priority" gmail list that I monitor during the day along with personal and unsecured business messages. Priority account is associated with GTalk and other real time communications including push to mobile devices and todo/calendar lists.
The rest goes to "low priority" list that I skimp once or twice a day at best. It is more often wiped out then read after a brief scan - sorry to say flexcoders is in low priority gmail account along with few other groups. That way I can maintain some productivity if needed. Regards, Anatole PS Obviously, there is also secured IMAP aggregator that distributes all business and private correspondence that goes to conventional email agent as well. On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:37 AM, Doug McCune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Out of morbid curiosity, am I the only one who has multiple email > lists all being filtered into the same mega-list? I have flexcoders, > flexcomponents, apollocoders, papervision, degrafa, flexlib, and > flexjobs all dropped into a mondo folder in gmail. I color code each > list accordingly so I can at a glance see which list a message is > from, but typically I read them all in the master list. Nobody else > does this? Somehow I can stay on top of it all, although I'm sure you > could argue that at times it's certainly not helping my productivity > :) > > Doug > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 9:17 PM, Bjorn Schultheiss > <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <bjorn.mailinglists%40gmail.com>> wrote: > > cool. > > > > This discussion needs some resolving though. > > > > I'm all for the creation of another 15 lists. > > With all the cross-posting, subject-meta, gmail, stats, > > my-left-arm-is-longer-than-my-right arguments, my vote is still with > > the split. > > > > best-practices, architecture, components, unit-testing, deployment, > > flash-flex, remote services, java-flex architectures, design ux, > > announcements, etc.. > > > > lets do it. > > > > --- In [email protected] <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com>, > "Daniel Freiman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> I think of "Best Practices" and "Architecture/Concepts" as separate but > >> overlapping categories so I guess that's why I thought no one else > > brought > >> it up. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Bjorn Schultheiss < > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > > Also, to Bjorn, that's a point I hadn't thought of. The idea of > >> > having an > >> > > arch/concepts list might be interesting. The two questions I > > would have > >> > > would be: 1) would the questions on this list have any connection to > >> > Flex > >> > > >> > Anatole mentioned it earlier in a 'Best Practices' list. > >> > > >> > For example at MAX thy had that Best Practices panel and some > >> > interesting topics were brought up and discussed. > >> > > >> > From my point of view I'm always learning. > >> > It would be an interesting read for me. > >> > > >> > > >> > --- In [email protected] > >> > <flexcoders%40yahoogroups.com><flexcoders% > 40yahoogroups.com>, > > "Daniel > >> > Freiman" <FreimanCQ@> wrote: > >> > > > >> > > I agree that a FAQ seems like a good idea no matter what. Is anyone > >> > against > >> > > this idea independent of the argument of whether or not to split the > >> > list? > >> > > > >> > > As far as splitting lists, I still think if people want to propose > >> > potential > >> > > new lists, they need to be much more explicit about what the list > >> > will be > >> > > for. I'll take the "enterprise" example. Let's assume for a second > >> > it has > >> > > only one correct meaning (which is an assumption I agree with, > > but many > >> > > people disagree with me on that). "Enterprise" has become a > >> > buzzword with > >> > > many different commonly understood meanings, and most of those > >> > meanings are > >> > > vague. There's no way for everyone on the list to be sure that we're > >> > > talking about the same thing unless someone explicitly spells out > >> > what we > >> > > are talking about (I'm not going to because I'm against having a > >> > > "enterprise" list given every way I know to interpret the word). > >> > And if we > >> > > don't have a common understanding of the proposal we can't > > efficiently > >> > > criticize/support/amend the proposal. I'm not saying there has to > >> > be a fine > >> > > line separating the lists, but it should at least be a fuzzy line. > >> > > > >> > > Also, to Bjorn, that's a point I hadn't thought of. The idea of > >> > having an > >> > > arch/concepts list might be interesting. The two questions I > > would have > >> > > would be: 1) would the questions on this list have any connection to > >> > Flex > >> > > other than the fact that the users code in Flex (I think it probably > >> > would) > >> > > or would it just be piggybacking on the user base; 2) Will it avoid > >> > > stratification of the user base (i.e. will it be practically > >> > accessible to > >> > > users of all skill levels)? > >> > > > >> > > Lastly, I'm going to reiterate my opinion that we shouldn't > > separate the > >> > > lists based on skill/level difficulty. The distinction is too fuzzy > >> > (Too > >> > > much cross-posting and too much posting to the wrong list). > >> > Sometimes you > >> > > don't know if you're question is advanced or not until you get the > >> > answer. > >> > > I've had a few times where I've asked what I thought was a simple > >> > question > >> > > and the response from Gordon was "I talked to a guy on the player > >> > team..." > >> > > If a question has a one line answer it can't be complex...unless > > the one > >> > > line required going through the player or compiler code to > > understand it > >> > > (sorry for the overstatement). > >> > > > >> > > - Daniel Freiman > >> > > > >> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Douglas Knudsen <douglasknudsen@> > >> > > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > Having been on this list since 2004, yeah back when the Iteration > >> > > > folks were not Adobe Robe Wearers yet, I've seen this > > discussion come > >> > > > up a few times. I've asked for a associated FAQ a few times, but > >> > > > there was no interest from the Iteration folks on this or > > splitting up > >> > > > things, no offense Alistair or Stephen you more than rocked with > >> > > > helping this community. I'd certainly agree to a good FAQ be made > >> > > > available and sent to the list monthly for all to be reminded > > and have > >> > > > it linked at the footer. > >> > > > > >> > > > Bjorn has a good point later in this thread about the idea that > >> > > > answers are terse due to volume. > >> > > > > >> > > > Matt, I do agree with your #1, but #2 and #3 sounds too much > > like list > >> > > > mommies or invitations for list mommies. Something quite > > uncommon to > >> > > > the best of my recollection on flexcoders is the real need for > > list > >> > > > mommies. > >> > > > > >> > > > I'm in Anatole's camp on this, having multiple lists could be > >> > > > beneficial to all as well as the community. Do we know this for a > >> > > > fact? Nope, my crystal ball isn't helping, but it has with > > many other > >> > > > topics in the past. Conversely it may have hindered others, but > >> > > > perhaps because the introduction of split lists was premature, who > >> > > > knows. Hey, there are already multiple lists, besides > > flexcomponents > >> > > > there is HOF_Flex for one and the India based list too, I'm > > sure there > >> > > > are others. > >> > > > > >> > > > I suggest we start off with a couple very generic variants. > >> > > > flexcoders_enterprise seems ok to me, those that work with > > enterprise > >> > > > tools would find it obvious. leave flexcoders as is, add in a > >> > > > designer centric list, and a advanced list and go from there, > > revisit > >> > > > in a few months to see how it went. > >> > > > > >> > > > Oh, BTW< there are other email readers that do threaded tricks > > like > >> > > > GMail...though I don't use them. :) > >> > > > > >> > > > DK > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Matt Chotin > >> > <mchotin@<mchotin%40adobe.com>> > >> > > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > Hey folks, let's calm down a little here, K? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Alright, based on what I've been seeing people say, here's my > >> > suggestion. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1) Let's get an FAQ going that can be edited by moderators or > >> > members of > >> > > > the > >> > > > > community. This will be about common problems that folks run > >> > into. One > >> > > > > suggestion of course from me would be that we use the > > Cookbook for > >> > > > "how-to" > >> > > > > type questions. But for things that don't seem like they're > > cookbook > >> > > > > appropriate, we can put them in the FAQ. I like the idea of > >> > doing it in > >> > > > > Buzzword, though Buzzword docs won't come up in Google. > >> > Long-term I think > >> > > > > the right place might be in whatever we set up in the Adobe > >> > Developer > >> > > > > Center. But for now how about we just allocate a page off of the > >> > > > opensource > >> > > > > wiki. We can pick some moderators who can edit the page and I > >> > will get > >> > > > them > >> > > > > added so they can take care of it. We can also add the link to > >> > the FAQ to > >> > > > > the bottom of every email. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 2) Some folks suggested that you either mark in the body or > > in the > >> > > > subject > >> > > > > something that indicates what you're talking about. Seems > >> > reasonable. We > >> > > > > could use some of the topics that were being suggested. [UX], > >> > > > [Enterprise], > >> > > > > [Data Services] [Announce], etc. We don't need to limit > > this, but by > >> > > > > following a convention of placing the general area of > >> > discussion, folks > >> > > > will > >> > > > > know if they're going to be capable of getting involved in the > >> > thread. > >> > > > The > >> > > > > more people follow this convention, the more efficient it will > >> > become. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 3) We can get aggressive on the moderation. Rather than just > >> > scanning for > >> > > > > spam, moderators can actually look at the posts by new users and > >> > decide > >> > > > if > >> > > > > they meet the general criteria for asking a question. If they > >> > don't, the > >> > > > > moderator can reject the post and point the user to the forum > >> > FAQ which > >> > > > has > >> > > > > posting guidelines. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 4) We can update the flexcoders FAQ (which is actually > > linked at the > >> > > > bottom > >> > > > > of every single post) to include the updated posting > > guidelines and > >> > > > remove > >> > > > > the common questions section so that the forum FAQ is only about > >> > forum > >> > > > > etiquette and the coding FAQ is about the actual problems. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > If this sounds OK then what we need are the two kinds of > > moderators: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > 1. moderators for the forum itself who are willing to really > >> > look at all > >> > > > > posts that are in moderation and analyze whether they should be > >> > passed > >> > > > > through. If it is a poorly formed question, the post should be > >> > rejected > >> > > > with > >> > > > > a pointer to the forum FAQ. > >> > > > > 2. moderators for the FAQ who can pay attention to common > >> > questions and > >> > > > > update the FAQ as appropriate. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > If we're all on board, send those moderators to me and we can > >> > get things > >> > > > set > >> > > > > up. And folks can start following the tagging convention > >> > instantly in the > >> > > > > meantime. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Matt > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Douglas Knudsen > >> > > > http://www.cubicleman.com > >> > > > this is my signature, like it? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >
