[clug] New list?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

On 19/08/10 22:25, Daniel Pittman wrote:
> Eyal Lebedinsky<eyal at eyal.emu.id.au>  writes:
>
>> I don't see your point. If we keep to the spirit of the original subject
>> (technical or not) then people can easily decide what thread to follow.
>
> I think this would hit problems when folks disagreed, honestly, about what the
> was in keeping with the spirit of the subject and what wasn't.

Sure, this will not lead to a perfect agreement, just to more staying on subject.

> You and I have already significantly disagreed, in the past, on what
> constitutes a reasonable part of a thread and not — and I believe that
> disagreement was in good faith, not bad, on both parts.
>
>> e.g. If the subject is "how do I get this TV tuner driver to work" and
>> you want to discuss a license issue then it probably does not belong
>> in the same thread. But it is OK on this list.
>
> What happens if, say, the license of that driver is unclear, and someone feels
> that it is important that is discussed?

I suggest: Discussed - yes. In this thread - probably not.

> It isn't like this is uncommon, either: the NVIDIA binary blob is pretty
> widely used...

But no, while the license issue is valid, a technical question about how
to get a driver going is mostly unrelated to the license. The discussion
is reasonable, but better done in a separate thread.

And my example here is about the often raised objection/acceptance of binary
-only drivers yada yada. A good, hot topic that will probably *not* help
the (virtual) OP getting their video going.

It is very common to see a thread, by the time it runs for a few dozen
posts, to be pretty much off topic for the OP. I often reread the original
item before participating in a thread if I fear that it lost its focus.

And I do see people open a new thread to take the discussion in a new
direction, something I appreciate.

>> And if I mention that a friend of mine "he has it running OK" and you
>> want to say that there are also women using Linux then it again should
>> go in another thread. But it is OK on this list.
>
> ...and I am sure that you see the lines as being pretty clear about what is
> and isn't "in the spirit of the thread"; so, by and large, do I.  The problem
> is that we disagree on those decisions.
>
> The obvious example, to which you refer, is previous discussion that included
> privilege and gender bias in the FOSS community, and CLUG specifically.

And let no one take this as an invitation to reopen it :-)

> This also ignores the harder part of my question: how do you propose that this
> is enforced?  How would offenders be penalized, and who would make the
> judgement call on that?

No no no no, I do not propose to enforce this is any way, just suggesting
that people keep it in mind. After all this is a positively anarchic list
of an anarchic group. No enforcers here that I know of.

>          Daniel

cheers and Good Night,
	Eyal

>> On 19/08/10 20:26, Daniel Pittman wrote:
>>> Eyal Lebedinsky<eyal at eyal.emu.id.au>   writes:
>>>
>>> I don't know how well that would work: where is the line between technical and
>>> non-technical discussion?
>>>
>>> On which side does, say, GPL licensing for a project fit?  Not a technical
>>> issue, but a legal one, or possibly an ethical one, depending.
>>>
>>> However, something that might come up in an otherwise technical discussion?
>>> Absolutely.
>>>
>>> Likewise, software freedom day: clearly a non-technical subject; what happens
>>> when someone wants to talk about what software to distribute?  Is that tech or
>>> non-tech?  When does it cross the line?
>>>
>>> I think, at best, you are inviting arguments over personal judgement with this
>>> distinction: what you see as "non-technical" I might see as "technical", or
>>> the other way around.
>>>
>>>
>>> Finally, what penalty are you proposing when people violate this rule, and how
>>> are you proposing it be enforced?
>>>
>>>           Daniel
>>>
>>>> How about this: A technical thread (judging by the subject) should stay
>>>> technical.  People should refrain from non-technical responses. People *can*
>>>> start another thread to deal with their pet non-technical subject, even in
>>>> response to the *other* (technical) thread. All is welcome.
>>>>
>>>> If we all keep this civility the we can all share the one list. I personally
>>>> would rather we did *not* split the list, and I an ready to read or ignore
>>>> threads as I wish.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>>
>>>> On 19/08/10 13:54, Chris Smart wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:45 AM, David Lloyd<lloy0076 at adam.com.au>    wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll ignore the "with all due respect" - you may well be the person in the world who says that without meaning "you're an idiot" ;-P
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I really did mean that because I respect that the list
>>>>> currently does permit social talk (the only thing it does not permit
>>>>> is adverts by non-list members). Like I said, I'm not trying to stop
>>>>> people from saying what they want to, I just want a place where I can
>>>>> discuss Linux issues with technical people without the noise. I
>>>>> understand that the CLUG list is not the medium to do that, so case
>>>>> closed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 - putting it in my inevitable blunt style (and noone will probably like me for it), LinuxSA started to decline when the lists split.
>>>>>
>>>>> I get the message, loud and clear. Over and out.
>>>>>
>>>>> -c

-- 
Eyal Lebedinsky	(eyal at eyal.emu.id.au)