On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 02:02 -0800, Shakthi Kannan wrote: > Greetings! > > My thoughts below: > > --- Bret Comstock Waldow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And I have no problem with this group/mailing list > > enforcing rules for > > posting, > > ... we (in ilugc), call it merely guidelines: > > http://www.chennailug.org/wiki/List_Guidelines > > If you read through them, you will see that most of > them have been updated with the experiences we have > had with newbies. > > > And I see this group wants to take the Linux > > namespace, at least in Sydney. > > After reading the messages about who gets to say > > RTFM, I began to wonder if > > this group is actually interested in upholding the > > philosophy that comes with > > that name. > > IMHO, I don't like to spoon-feed solutions to newbies. > If they do their homework, make an effort to "learn", > and then they say that they got stuck at some > instance, I'd like to "help" them. > > One of the best things I like about FLOSS is the > documentation. You can simply follow the README, > INSTALL and doc files, step-by-step. > > Cheers guyz, > > SK
I think there is a balance in all of this. Telling a new user who has no idea that comprehensive documentation is available on their system to read said documentation [without specifying where to find it] for an unspecified keyword in an unfamiliar context is unlikely to produce an effective learning experience. Conversely telling someone like me who has been around a while [have I reached old fart yet ? What is the cutoff age for that?] whats going on in excruciating detail when there is a good manual I was unaware of is less efficient - I am very happy to receive nothing more than a pointer - "Foo bar standard and requirements under the topic 'synchronisation points'" is a -good- answer for me. I dont think RTFM is harmful per se, but it is neither sufficient - manuals are often large, narrower context is needed - nor necessary - unless the person asking has sufficient background to to take no more than a few bits of information and research from there a more involved answer is often necessary to ensure the context for the real answer is useful. I think its likely that there is a huge dropoff in the number of questions from users of a system as they gain familiarity, and at the same time for each user the questions will become more esoteric *from their perspective*. My suggestion is that an RTFM style response be reserved for: * Questions from people who have been around a while and thus know about the various documentation options and have the context to take an arbitrary manual and get a satisfactory answer. and that for people one does not recognize, or who do not claim such experience when they ask the question an answer with enough context to solve the problem PLUS guide them to where they might have found the answer themselves will be maximally useful in both the short and long term. As people become more familiar you can then assume they have been given many such references to information sources and types, and had time to internalise the various concepts needed to understand an answer. Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
