Re: RFC: Create d-user-woody, d-user-sarge maillists, deactivate d-user
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:28:52AM -0800, Hereon wrote:
> Request For Comment on:
> Enhancing the Debian mailing lists by:
> Creating debian-user-woody and debian-user-sarge mailing lists,
> and deactivating debian-user.
It's come up before, and it still sounds like a thoroughly dreadful
idea, I'm afraid. I certainly have no intention of subscribing to
another list that essentially duplicates much of the traffic from the
first list, especially since I would just spend even more time than I
already do redirecting people to the appropriate list when they get
confused. You want the people who answer questions to subscribe as well
as the people who ask them, and increasing their mailing list workload
by a large constant factor is not a good idea. In any case, it would
simply confuse users whose questions are not particularly directed
towards a single release.
> 2) The debian-user list is _unnecessarily_ overtrafficked,
> [due to it being the most likely place to ask user questions, and find
> answers, regarding both Stable(Woody), and
> Testing/Unstable(Sarge/Sid)]
This is exactly the wrong place to put any division. The distinction
between the various releases is not anywhere near sharp enough to make
different lists a good idea.
> which causes several problems for the Debian community:
> a) Wasted mental effort discerning which version a message
> pertains to,
Usually irrelevant. When it is relevant, it's generally fairly easy to
give both answers (which also helps people looking for either answer).
> 4) This message is requesting:
> 1) Comment regarding specific suggestions of how the situation
> could be inproved through the creation of 1 or more additional
> lists to augment or replace debian-user,
> 2) "Seconds" (to the motion) for the request of these changes.
This is an objection to the motion.
> By asking T/U questions in the -user forum, this is putting
> communications on two logically separable topics (stable, and
> testing/unstable) into one channel/forum.
Objection on point of fact: they aren't logically separable.
(No offence, but I haven't seen your name before. Are you requesting
complete list reorganizations without having posted much first? This is
often considered rather an ... abrupt ... way of joining a group.)
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: