[clug] An alternate place for longer, meandering threads?

[Neill Cox]

I hope you decide to stay, and I have some sympathy for your feelings about
long running threads that you have no interest in.  It happens to me from
time to time.

I reiterate the delete before reading option :)

Being on the CLUG list doesn't oblige you to read threads that don't
interest you.  I try and at least sample every thread just in case I might
learn something interesting (and I often do), but there are a lot of threads
I don't follow to their final [lack of] resolution.

Posting in frustration I also understand - damn that list archive!

Cheers,
Neill

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Conrad Canterford <
conrad at mail.watersprite.com.au> wrote:

> On Sun, 2009-09-13 at 13:14 +1000, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> > steve jenkin <sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au> writes:
> > > We may have lost Ben, James and Conrad from the list...  But their
> departure
> > > raises an issue.
> > *nod*  ...and their loss is disappointing.
>
> Let me start by apologising for my outburst. You haven't quite lost me
> (yet).
> I'm still musing whether I still see the value of remaining on the CLUG
> list. Please note that this is not just because of the recent female
> numeric inequality threads. Those threads just brought it home to me
> that I actually read extremely little of the traffic on this list. I've
> stayed subscribed for over 10 years now because there are occasionally
> interesting (to me) threads that I would not otherwise have been aware
> of. However, when the list suddenly grows to being nearly 50% of my
> daily viewable email traffic (spam filters are a wonderful thing),
> almost entirely in one thread which very quickly broke down into two
> camps and just went in circles, I have to wonder if I wouldn't get
> better value from unsubscribing, safe in the knowledge that google will
> bring to my attention any thread that is relevant to a future need.
>
> No, I'm not after sympathy, pleas for me to stay or arguments why I
> should or should not be subscribed. I'll sort that out for myself, but I
> thought I did owe people some explanation for my outburst.
>
> > > [Why would you do that publicly?  Sorry, I don't understand that.]
>
> Because sometimes frustration gets the better of us? We had one thread
> with maybe a dozen people participating, that appeared to be arguing in
> circles without actually resolving anything, and which (unlike most
> threads on this list) was actually bordering on personal insults (at
> least in a few cases - and due credit that the people involved didn't
> escalate into a full-on flame war).
>
> > However, the split of "core" and "off-topic" list works well for the
> Victorian
> > LUG, which has quite a lot of, well, technical flame-wars, basically.
>  The
> > same sort of heat, probably less light, but helped by having the outlet.
>
> I've seen this work well in other instances. I've also seen it be a
> dismal failure. I think the CLUG list would likely fall into the later
> category, due to the very rare instances of such threads, but if other
> people think it might work, give it a go. I agree with Daniel that the
> "social moderated" approach is preferable to the (possibly arbitrary)
> enforced moderation if this approach is taken.
>
> Conrad.
>
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>