On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:03:05 -0500, John Kaufmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> In a message dated 2009.11.06 00:13 -0500, Tamblyne wrote: > > > ... The people who are frustrated are making the same complaints and > > suggestions, and the moderators still have their hands tied. They're > > moderators -- they don't manage CollabNet. > > Moderators (and the list owner) are closer to the list management than > are the volunteers who work so tirelessly to make this list go, and > whose time is so routinely wasted by list malfunction. If one is in a > better position to effect change, one should use that position. You > don't have to "manage CollabNet" to make better use of ezmlm - even if > you do need to work with CollabNet to get changes made. Unless things have changed drastically, and it's certainly possible that they have, the moderators moderate. That's it. They keep the spam out. They aren't in any better position to effect change than you are. > > Kudos, though, to Paul for trying. I notice he got at least one > > "slamming" after "outing" himself. Might be why the moderators tend > > not to do that. > > I hope you don't think that my question to him - when he confessed to > just watching the seemingly endless discussions about how to fix the > list, because he was tired of them - was "slamming". His comment was an > acknowledgment that he knows there are problems but was not particularly > moved to do something about them. Maybe I'm a tough grader, but that > does not strike me as "trying", and I say that without the slightest > malice; it's simply a statement of fact. I think you're confusing "knowing" with the ability to do something about it. I'm a "tough grader," too, but I at least like to make sure the person I'm "grading" is the one actually responsible for the problem. Paul isn't. As you are aware -- if you weren't, you are now -- these issues aren't new ones. These discussions aren't original. They've been going on for years. I'm sure Paul has better things to do than to constantly tell people "yeah, it's broke, but we can't fix it." > Paul did instruct me to check the archives to learn /why/ he was not > moved to do anything, but that turned out to be just another waste of > time, and he did not respond to my reply on that point. Both ends of > that strike me as a lack of courtesy, a lack of effort (a contrast to > the amazing effort you routinely see from some of the list volunteers) - > but I say that, again, without malice; it's simply a statement of fact, > and I sadly wish it were otherwise. No "slamming" involved. IIRC, you made quite a point of the fact that he had wasted your time. I'm not Paul, but I wouldn't have responded to you, either. He said what he had to say. Why continue the discussion with nothing new to add? The archives of this list are, yes, basically worthless. But you probably already knew that -- or was this the first time you've tried to find something there? I've looked for old things that I have posted, trying to find that information again. It takes forever and is very frustrating. It doesn't help that you were, again IIRC, using "moderators" as a search term. "Unsubscribed poster" wouldn't help, either. I took a gamble and did a search for "CollabNet" -- since that always seems to come up eventually -- and found this from April of 2004: http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=62950 Which was an off-shoot of this: http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=63139 So, as you can see, they've been trying to come up with solutions to this problem for a very long time. FYI -- Mr. Hennessey (CPH), who took it upon himself to CC every unsubscribed poster -- was very active in the OOo project as a whole, a mailing list moderator, a member of the Community Council, etc. As you can see, he couldn't get it "fixed," either, so he worked around it, and tirelessly so. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
