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

Neill Cox neill.cox at ingenious.com.au
Tue Sep 15 03:34:34 MDT 2009


Hey Eyal,

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I was jumping on you over this.

All I'm doing is expressing my opinion, and I'm not claiming there's
anything special about mine :)

Perhaps we (all) are more likely to agree on whether something is social
than we are on whether or not social is off topic for the list.

To quote the CLUG web page "There is a mailing list for the discussion of
anything to do with Linux in the Canberra area".  I think that covers social
as well as technical.

I think I'm running the risk of bike shedding[1] if I take this any further
so I'll just shut up now.

Cheers,
Neill

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law_of_Triviality
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:09 PM, Eyal Lebedinsky <eyal at eyal.emu.id.au>wrote:

> Neill Cox wrote:
>
>> Trouble is it's not OT as far as all of us are concerned.
>>
>
> Not 'all of us'!
>
> And I clearly explained that OT refers to non-technical discussion. I am
> not saying that it is not 'related' (which is very difficult to define).
>
>  I can live with [social] or [wet], but I'd rather just see clear thread
>> subjects.  That's usually enough to let me know if I'll be interested.
>>
>
> Personally, I do not need these tags either, but others indicated that
> they would like it and I contributed my opinion.
>
>  CHeers,
>> Neill
>>
>
> cheers
>
>
>  On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Eyal Lebedinsky <eyal at eyal.emu.id.au
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  I regularly see the [off topic] or [OT] tag used in forums. It is short
>>> and clear. While each poster will need to make their own decision, if at
>>> all, it surely should be used when the purpose of the post is to be
>>> off topic (which I see as technical issues regarding linux and foss) as
>>> some recent threads were.
>>>
>>> This will give some people a guilt free license to discuss non technical
>>> (but still related) issues, post "this may interest some" notes while
>>> allowing each reader to make their own mind as to what they should open.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Alex Satrapa wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 15/09/2009, at 08:58 , Conrad Canterford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  ... 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 wonder if people commenting on social aspects could be disciplined
>>>> enough to insert [social] into the subject?
>>>>
>>>> Thus if you want to talk about something kinda related to Linux that is
>>>> more of social nature, just insert [social] into the subject. If you are
>>>> replying to a thread about Project Y and want to comment about how
>>>> Project Y
>>>> has a higher proportion of
>>>>
>>>> women/footballers/motorheads/other-non-stereotypical-linux-geek-population,
>>>> just stick "[social]" into the subject. Some of us already try to be
>>>> helpful
>>>> by renaming a thread to "X (was Re: Y)".
>>>>
>>>> The result would effectively be a separate list for longer meandering
>>>> threads without having a separate list for longer meandering threads...
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>> Eyal Lebedinsky (eyal at eyal.emu.id.au)
>>> --
>>> linux mailing list
>>> linux at lists.samba.org
>>> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Eyal Lebedinsky (eyal at eyal.emu.id.au)
> --
> linux mailing list
> linux at lists.samba.org
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux
>


More information about the linux mailing list