Thanks for your thoughts, Jody.

I agree with you for the most part.

I would say, however, that even on the lists on which I participate,
the "Newbie" version of the list still has to have experienced posters
who can guide the newbies.  Without them, the newbies would all be
floundering for lack of guidance.

Also, you're right in saying that a list on a topic doesn't *have* to have
it first mission be to teach.  However, a list as broad in spectrum in dealing
with standards as this list should have teaching as a core purpose, unless it 
specifically states

And finally, I participate on other lists that have users with varying degrees
of expertise, so there are many topics that are beyond me or of no interest to 
For those, I just skim the topics and delete.  I guess some people do feel duty 
bound to
read all topics, but I just hit the ones that I have answers to or have some 
interest for me.

If I read them all I'd never get anything done!  :o)

But always, list management is a tricky business and discussions like these are 
part of
a growing, vibrant community.  It would be very easy to manage a list where 
there were
no participants!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jody Tate
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 5:01 PM
> To: Web Standards Group
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Appropriate postings
> I'm a lurker on the list, but primarily because the list, so far, has seemed
> like a place where people come for help solving specific, remedial problems
> with long-standing (in internet-time) solutions well-documented on the
> internet and in books.
> On 8/5/08 11:10 AM, "Rick Faircloth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And I would like to know what a list on any subject is for if not for 
> > helping
> > people understand the most basic principles and application of a give
> > practice.
> > A list on any topic must embrace all level of participants, beginners and
> > advanced, alike.
> If we think of the list as a classroom, a teaching environment, then it's
> standard practice to have separate beginning, advanced, etc. classes. At the
> university level, for example (in the US), classes at the 100 level tackle
> different issues than classes at the 200, 300 and 400 level.
> A list on a topic isn't required to embrace all levels of expertise. I've
> participated in many mailings lists where some requests for basic help were
> considered off-topic. Requests for help when answers can be found by via
> searches or reading books were often seen as inappropriate.
> I'd advocate (at the risk of sounding snobby), as some have suggested, for
> different lists--one to accommodate beginners and another to accommodate
> other developers interested, not in help with standards, but in the
> standards themselves.
> > Anyone who thinks a list about web standards should not first have as its
> > mission
> > to teach and clarify the basics of the tools of standardization, such as 
> > CSS,
> > is
> > mistaken.  Unless expressly stated, a list must cater to the lowest common
> > denominator of its participants, not the highest.  By doing so, those on the
> > bottom
> > are lifted up, instead of always being pushed down and kept in the dark.
> To think a list about web standards doesn't need to have teaching as its
> first mission is not mistaken, it's considering that a different goal or
> multiple goals might be acceptable.
> Web standards are not new, though they may be new to some list users.
> Teaching can be a function, but if helping others with the basics is its
> sole function, as it's becoming here, it neglects another portion of the
> list's members, those who have been using web standards since their
> inception and hope to have extended discussions about, for example, XHTML
> vs. HTML5, CSS3, current and upcoming browser implementation of standards,
> emerging standards and so on.
> -jody
> --
> Jody Tate
> *******************************************************************
> List Guidelines:
> Unsubscribe:
> *******************************************************************
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG -
> Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1592 - Release Date: 8/5/2008 
> 6:03 AM

List Guidelines:

Reply via email to