Completely agree Hugh, lets make sure we stick to the thread.
Gio
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Hugh Glaser <[email protected]> wrote:
> Someone starts a thread (in this case Luca and his Restpark), about something
> they would like to get some feedback on.
> In the very first reply, an issue arises that is at best tangential to the
> thread subject, but (in my opinion) has no direct bearing on it:
> issues around "SPARQL scales?" and perhaps in comparison with REST, etc.
>
> 40+ messages follow on "scaling", with the few on Restpark interspersed.
> Only the hardiest souls interested in Restpark would have combed through
> these messages to see the topic that interests them
> (or people who are retired with nothing better to do because they don't like
> gardening :-) )
>
> This is no way to run a mailing list to get the widest engagement.
> It was clear very early (third message?) that the scaling topic had arisen -
> at that stage the discussion should have moved to a new thread on scaling;
> or simply changed the subject line to have "SPARQL Scaling - was Restpark -
> Minimal…".
> Then the people who might want to discuss Restpark can do so in their own
> thread, and the scaling people can have their thread, without being bothered
> by the Restpark discussion if they don't want to be.
> Simples!
>
> I wouldn't bother, but this seems to be the normal way this lists works -
> check out the archive if you want!
> It makes it quite dysfunctional.
>
> Note that I did not simply add this message to the Restpark thread, which is
> what usually happens in this list!
>
> Best
> Hugh
