On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > OK, I don't want to be an arse here, but I have to ask.
> > Is this "directive" coming in any official capacity?
> > If so, which one?
>
> When we created slug-chat, it was for all the reasons that Tony pointed out,
> because there were a lot of rumblings about off-topic stuff being discussed
[...]
> So, if you'd regard this as a 'directive', it would come from a large mass
> of our subscribers via the committee.
Still doesn't quite answer my question, but comes close. In future, if
Tony is acting for the committee, or as part of the committee, I'd
appreciate him saying so in his email - otherwise, I'm just going to
regard such "directives" {which is how his message came across in this
text medium} with the disdain they deserve - by hitting the D key
immediately and ignoring them.
> People subscribe to the SLUG mailing list to learn about Linux, not to argue
> about the environment and share conspiracy theories about Microsoft.
Had Tony bothered to read the article before hitting the knee jerk, "Take
this to slug-chat" reply button, he'd have noticed that the article
contains no conspiracy theory, comment about environment, or anything
else. Just good, positive comment about Linux being accepted more widely
in Corporate Australia - a good thing in anyone's language.
> > If not - where do you have problems with people pointing out Linux in the
> > news?
>
> Hell no! Positive advocacy is completely on topic for the main SLUG list.
> Stuart's post about IBM considering Linux desktops is 100% on topic. Ken Yap
> used to post his famous (mostly positive advocacy) one line link emails,
> which were always interesting and encouraging.
Hmmm, and here I was thinking that was what I posted.
> > The story is directly related to the rise of Linux in Corporate Australia
> > - something I, for one, am happy to read.
>
> "Microsoft backlash boosts Linux."
So the title makes the article content?
Can I help it if journalists sensationalise everything they write, for the
sheer shock value, hoping they'll send more newspapes/magazines/online
subscriptions?
> Granted, the article is slightly less adversarial than the title.
Exactly my point. The article wasn;t bad - it was just judged that way
because of the title.
> > Are we restricting SLUG to the "Can only ask questions if you mention
> > Debian at least twice" list?
>
> That would be a particularly stupid thing to do, given that many SLUGgers
> don't use Debian. Note: Sydney *LINUX* User's Group.
Yup. Whatever you say, Jeff.
DaZZa
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
