Re: Proposed change for subscriptions...
On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 05:14:42PM +1100, Andrew Vaughan wrote:
> Now is this
> (i) spam as in unsolicited commercial/bulk email,
> (ii) noise as in clueless user looking for eg. windows help,
> (iii) noise as in clueless linux user "how do I ...",
> (iv) noise as in "that was asked and answered 3 times last week",
> (v) noise as in not this argument again?
>
> Personally I find the noise to be a big problem. But I don't believe that
> requiring subscription before posting will solve it. (I concede that it
> will help,) but I expect it would discourage the roughly the same
> proportion of (ii), (iii) and (iv). Each discouraged (iii) and (iv) is a
> potentially a lost user.
Each (ii), who is flamed, is also a potentially a lost user, lost even
before he is found.
A more general comment on the character of the list:
A great deal of concern has been expressed about hurt feelings of
some users, but it is also important to realize that _the_ resource
that makes this list worthwhile is the experienced and helpful
developers who give this list their continued attention. A change that
drives some of them away is not progress for anyone. (This relates to
type (v) noise.)
And another:
Making rational arguments is not enough to win an argument. One must
also be aware of rational arguments in favor of the contrary view, and
be willing to address them rationally. IMHO, almost all proposers of
change are blind-sided by Debian's long and rich history.
--
Paul E Condon
pecondon@mesanetworks.net
Reply to: