Re: [Mailman-Users] Meta: bringing along the newcomers
On Dec 18, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from the existing FAQ 1.22. Most of which I wrote, and which I probably was not in a particularly good mood when I wrote it. It definitely needs re-working. Anyway, you're entirely missing the point. I don't expect anybody to read FAQ 1.22 in advance of comitting a faux pas; this particular FAQ is mostly for pointing to *afterward*. Indeed. That is precisely the point. -- Brad Knowles bradknow...@shub-internet.org LinkedIn Profile: http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Meta: bringing along the newcomers
Lindsay Haisley writes: Stephen, with all due respect for the work you put into your post, I think it goes a bit overboard in the other direction. If I can pose a question in 6 or 7 lines of text, do I really need to read a couple of hundred lines of instruction? It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from the existing FAQ 1.22. - or dig through a FAQ and write a critique of it - just to get a simple answer? Yup, that's exactly the stuff I cut and pasted. Anyway, you're entirely missing the point. I don't expect anybody to read FAQ 1.22 in advance of comitting a faux pas; this particular FAQ is mostly for pointing to *afterward*. I recently posted a question to this list in about 7 lines inquiring as to what file is the source document in a Mailman Pipermail archive. I asked on the list precisely _because_ I didn't want to spend the time searching through FAQs and other documentation for a simple answer to a simple question. Er, that's precisely what FAQs and documentation in general are for, so I suggest you go read the current version of FAQ 1.22, then. It was written for people like you.wink More seriously, you've been around long enough (and have presumably actually perused the FAQ once or twice) to have a sense of what's *not* in there. You're obviously not the audience for FAQ 1.22, and the question you describe is not one of the ones that Mark should make a New Year's resolution to stop answering. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Mailman-Users] Meta: bringing along the newcomers
Hi, Excuse the top-posting. :) When I first had to look at the FAQs and subscribe to this list to get some problems sorted, there were two FAQs. There may will still be. It appeared to me that the much shorter one was by far the more visible, and I only found the main WIKI-based FAQ when I went to look in the WIKI, which seemed to me an obvious thing to do but might not to people less familiar with open source projects and their methodologies. I think that two things would cut down on the see the FAQ type questions: 1. Get rid of the non-WIKI FAQ, merging any content that's not already in the WIKI, then point everyone there. The WIKI FAQ is an excellent resource, and I'm sure many people would find the answers to their questions if they knew to look there. 2. In the places where this list is mentioned, make it clear that this list, which is given as the main support address for Mailman, is a mailing list, that it's a moderated list so posts may take a day or two to be sent, and that we cannot reset your password for you or other types of things that specific hosting providers need to do. A comment about the various forks of Mailman which can't really be supported might also be a good idea. Just my 2c as a person who's come on board here in the past couple of months. Geoff. - Original Message - From: Stephen J. Turnbull step...@xemacs.org To: fmo...@fmp.com Cc: mailman-users@python.org Sent: Friday, 18 December, 2009 3:09 PM Subject: Re: [Mailman-Users] Meta: bringing along the newcomers Lindsay Haisley writes: Stephen, with all due respect for the work you put into your post, I think it goes a bit overboard in the other direction. If I can pose a question in 6 or 7 lines of text, do I really need to read a couple of hundred lines of instruction? It's under 100 lines, of which almost half were cut-and-pasted from the existing FAQ 1.22. - or dig through a FAQ and write a critique of it - just to get a simple answer? Yup, that's exactly the stuff I cut and pasted. Anyway, you're entirely missing the point. I don't expect anybody to read FAQ 1.22 in advance of comitting a faux pas; this particular FAQ is mostly for pointing to *afterward*. I recently posted a question to this list in about 7 lines inquiring as to what file is the source document in a Mailman Pipermail archive. I asked on the list precisely _because_ I didn't want to spend the time searching through FAQs and other documentation for a simple answer to a simple question. Er, that's precisely what FAQs and documentation in general are for, so I suggest you go read the current version of FAQ 1.22, then. It was written for people like you.wink More seriously, you've been around long enough (and have presumably actually perused the FAQ once or twice) to have a sense of what's *not* in there. You're obviously not the audience for FAQ 1.22, and the question you describe is not one of the ones that Mark should make a New Year's resolution to stop answering. -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/geoff%40quitelikely.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4698 (20091218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4698 (20091218) __ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- Mailman-Users mailing list Mailman-Users@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
[Mailman-Users] Meta: bringing along the newcomers
Somebody-whom-I-don't-want-to-pick-on-in-particular writes: On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:00:34PM -0500, (Some) Poor Fellow wrote: Thanks please don't (1) reply to list-posts off-list: send them to the list; (2) top-post Given the recent surge in non-traditional list admins (ie, folks without a Unix or mail admin background), I feel this is excessively curt. I don't know about this particular Poor Fellow, but the generic Poor Fellow probably had no idea it wasn't going to the right place (he probably isn't subscribed, either, so he won't notice that he didn't get his own post back). I suggest that better wording is Please be careful to ensure that your reply is addressed to the list. Actually there should be a FAQ for that in Section 1, so you can add see FAQ x.yy. I suggest adding this to FAQ 1.22. Something like 1.22 How should I write my post when asking a question on this mailing list? Customs vary on the Internet, and while we [except for the majority of us old Usenet curmudgeons ;-] don't want to impose our customs on the rest of the 'Net, your questions *will* be answered more quickly and helpfully if you observe the following: o The first thing you should do is indicate that you've done your homework. Look at the Mailman documentation linked from http://www.list.org/docs.html. Search the Frequently Asked Questions in the wiki. Search the archives of the mailing list (see How do I search the archives of the mailman-users mailing list?). Once you've looked through all the relevant pieces of documentation, FAQ entries, archive messages, etc... and you still haven't found your answer, please give us additional information as well as the question itself. See FAQ . Specifically, we would like to know: 1. What methods did you use to look through the documentation and search the FAQ, mailing list archives, etc...? 2. If there were things that initially sounded relevant but ended up not being useful to you, which ones were they? If you did miss something that is relevant, then having this information will help us go back and improve the documentation/FAQ/etc... so that the next person who does the same search will hopefully hit the correct answer. In addition, we would appreciate it if you could provide URLs and precise descriptions of the information you found but which was not helpful to you. o If you have a specific/detailed question, please proceed to FAQ entry 1.23 at I have a specific-detailed question -- What kind of information do I need to provide when posting a question to this mailing list? See also FAQ entry 4.78 Troubleshooting- No mail going out to lists members. With this information, we are much more likely to be able to provide you assistance with your question. o Be careful to ensure that your reply is addressed to the list. The widespread practice of Reply-To munging is *not* implemented on our lists because it makes it difficult (and sometimes impossible) to send a private reply. Because this need is frequent in working on Mailman issues (many questions involve details of network and host configuration that could be used by crackers to compromise security), we do not set Reply-To to the list. (Reply-To munging is not a good idea in most cases; see Chip Rosenthal's essay Reply-To Munging Considered Harmful.) o It is a very good idea to subscribe to the list, or at least follow the thread in the archives. For various reasons, related posts may *not* be addressed to you, but only to the list. It would be a shame if you missed them. o Once you've sent your post, *wait* at least 48 hours for it to be forwarded to you or appear in the archives before assuming it got lost. Because we must allow non-members to post, we are relatively vulnerable to spam, and the lists are *moderated* by rather busy volunteers. Also, make sure that any spamblocking software you have is *off* for a while; you will get no sympathy at all if you block a reply (and note you don't know where it will come from, because the respondent may feel that the required information is sensitive, and should not be discussed in public -- see #2 above). No sympathy for the delay itself, and many of the less frequent contributors will ignore you completely thereafter. (The core people will still take care of you, but about half the useful answers come from the peanut gallery -- it's a significant resource.) o Avoid top-posting (adding a quick comment to the top of a message, leaving the automatically included quoted block intact.
