Subject Lines on the Mailing list: [WAS: Looking for a NH mail list talking about Linux]

Ben Scott dragonhawk at gmail.com
Tue Mar 27 11:52:01 EDT 2007


On 3/27/07, Jon 'maddog' Hall <maddog at li.org> wrote:
> I do not think that the discussion of "politics" by itself is reasonable
> in any gnhlug list.  From time to time an "aside" done in support of
> some point about Linux, but nothing about "parties" and their people.
> That should rapidly be rejected.

  I don't recall that we've *ever* had anyone go so far as to start
campaigning for their preferred candidate.  The worst was some brief
Bush-bashing.  But we have had several long, involved threads about
mostly political issues.  Copyright issues.  Taxes.  Free speech
issues.  Taxes.  Effectiveness of voting.  Taxes.  Patents.
Tollbooths.  And so on.  People have argued that any of these might
impact us, as NH Linux users, so they're on-topic.

  Given that we don't have a list charter, it's hard to call
*anything* "off-topic".

> The real sticking point is where one half the group feels one way
> strongly and the other half feels the other way (or neutral) strongly.
> I think that should be put on "discuss-social".  If people have strong
> technical views, I could read those almost the entire day

  Okay, again, what if someone else doesn't agree with where you draw
your own personal line?

  For example, we (and by "we" I mean "me") have spent hours endlessly
debating the finer points of, say, DNS implementation or security
policies.  It may be that most of the membership really does not care.
 So where does that go?

  Meanwhile, a brief message or two on an upcoming TV special may be
well-appreciated by the readership of the -tech list, no?

  What about the occasional astronomy-related message?  Does that go
to -tech (it's not Linux) or -social (but still technical)?

  I'm not just arguing to be argumentative (that's room 12A); these
are questions that would need to be answered for anything like a list
charter to be drawn up.

> ... (and then ignore them later with the proper subject line).

  Your parenthetical remark is one of my main points.  We still have
the off-topic, endless debate, and discipline issues.  Moving the
traffic around doesn't make those issues go away.

>> (2) What about discussions which touch both subjects?  Where does that go?
>
> Gentle guidance from the group.

  If gentle guidance works, wouldn't gentle guidance from the group be
sufficient to just tell people to take it off-list?  Or just plain
shut up?  :-)

> should be picked as carefully as the first subject line.

  I know from experience that the best subject line in the world can
still end up completely off-topic in about three replies.  I suspect
you do, too.  :)

  Humorous illustration:

http://www.kaitaia.com/funny/pictures/ThreadHijack/thread_direction.gif

> You could join "discuss" and get both.

  What happens when someone posts to -social, but I (subscribed to
-discuss) reply to -discuss?

> We could try it, and if it does not work what have we really lost?

  Depends on the transition grief.

  For example, who do we subscribe to which list?  Or do we start both
lists empty?

> I am actually not that displeased with the current arrangement ...

  Me neither.

  What I actually think might be best would be just the occasional
nudge (from *anyone*) suggesting, "Hey, you two seem the only two
people interested in this discussion, how about you take it off-list?"
 People who ignore nudges can be nudged harder.  With a 2x4, as
needed.

> But I am concerned because there may be people who leave the "discuss" mailing
> list because of the larger number of emails they get the whole day.

  It's not just quantity of mail, though.  Like you point out, many
messages on a topic you, personally, are interested in, you will
gladly read.  But even a couple messages on, say, tax law reform might
make your eyes glaze over.

> Other people's mileage may vary.

  We're trying to be all things to all people.

-- Ben


More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list