FAQ
i have been following this thread on a single p5p list vs. separate
group lists and here are my current thoughts. i am in favor of multiple
lists but we can easily solve the problem of those who want to see the
overall picture. either they subscribe to all the list or we have a
special read only list which gets a cc from every sub list (mail from
that global list would have a reply-to set to the originating
list). some say they want to see everything for osmosis which is
great. i don't know if i want to so i like the option to select which
lists i receive. it is easier to manage subscriptions than to worry
about filtering on porrly created subject lines. the multiple list idea
is not to isolate the group but to allow hackers to focus themselves
where they see they fit the best. you choose the size of your own
blinders.

i see the potential for 1 to 2 dozen groups (we still need a better name
for that), each with its own pumpking (who may double as
moderator). also i see the need for a secondary pumpking for every
group. this person would be working very closely with the primary and
can make decisions in the abscence of the primary. others in the group
will be doing various amounts of work. still others will just contribute
ideas via the groups list. and finally there will be lurkers. we may
want only people above lurkers to be able to write to a list. it will be
a simple matter to ask the pumpking to get writing permission.

some groups may actually be in a tree with a parent and several child
groups. this is totally up to how we divide up the projects. since many
of you will at least lurk on most if not all groups there will be plenty
of cross communication going but for someone who wants to focus on a few
areas, it is a way to do that. also i think it will keep the threads in
any given group more on topic and not be as personal which was the big
failing of p5p IMO. all groups should be moderated but very
lightly. only real ad hominem attacks and spam should be filtered. off
topic posts could be redirected to a better group.

some of these groups will be broader in scope and more influential than
others (language, internals), while some will be very focused
(regexes). since many of you will be active in multiple groups, there
will be plenty of cross fertilization and no group will operate in a
vacuum.

to me this solves the worst probems of p5p while allowing each
contributor to work in the way best suited for them.

this is not an ietf style group setup but a way to organize the
information flow in the perl6 development community. i think this project
deserves and needs a better structure than p5p. creating the actual
groups will be a critical task and should be started very soon. i
propose we start by enumerating the potential groups and just seeing how
that falls out. then we get primary and secondary pumpkings for each
one. we have primaries for the first set of tasks (librarian, list
admin, language, etc.) so we need secondaires for them too.

an important point that is not mentioned much is that most of these groups
are temporary. when their schedule is up they have to be renewed or
disbanded. they are not like ietf which has to keep a group alive to
manage the life of its standard. once we have the mission of a group
accomplished, the maintenance of it could be subsumed into another group.

thanx,

uri

--
Uri Guttman --------- uri@sysarch.com ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com

Search Discussions

  • Jonathan Scott Duff at Jul 24, 2000 at 3:55 pm

    On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:37:53AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
    i am in favor of multiple
    lists but we can easily solve the problem of those who want to see the
    overall picture. either they subscribe to all the list or we have a
    special read only list which gets a cc from every sub list (mail from
    that global list would have a reply-to set to the originating
    list).
    Why make the general list read only? Anyway, I like the idea of
    multiple highly-focused lists that get posted to a general p6p list.
    Also, when people try posting to a disbanded list, instead of just
    getting an auto-reply, their message could be posted to the general list.
    And mild moderation is a must to prevent reliving the sins of p5p. In
    short, I agree entirely with Uri.

    -Scott
    --
    Jonathan Scott Duff
    duff@cbi.tamucc.edu
  • Uri Guttman at Jul 24, 2000 at 3:59 pm
    "JSD" == Jonathan Scott Duff writes:
    JSD> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:37:53AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
    i am in favor of multiple
    lists but we can easily solve the problem of those who want to see the
    overall picture. either they subscribe to all the list or we have a
    special read only list which gets a cc from every sub list (mail from
    that global list would have a reply-to set to the originating
    list).
    JSD> Why make the general list read only? Anyway, I like the idea of
    JSD> multiple highly-focused lists that get posted to a general p6p
    JSD> list. Also, when people try posting to a disbanded list, instead
    JSD> of just getting an auto-reply, their message could be posted to
    JSD> the general list. And mild moderation is a must to prevent
    JSD> reliving the sins of p5p. In short, I agree entirely with Uri.

    because you should send mail to the specific list according to the
    topic. and that list is a read only cc of all the other lists. we could
    have a misc group list for general topics as well. i just think the read
    only cc list is useful for lurkers and others who want the big
    picture. by having the reply-to set to the originating list, you can
    still be involved in any thread you see.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman --------- uri@sysarch.com ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
    SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
    The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
    The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
  • Joshua N Pritikin at Jul 24, 2000 at 5:29 pm

    On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:02:01AM -0500, duff@cbi.tamucc.edu wrote:
    On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:37:53AM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
    i am in favor of multiple
    lists but we can easily solve the problem of those who want to see the
    overall picture. either they subscribe to all the list or we have a
    special read only list which gets a cc from every sub list (mail from
    that global list would have a reply-to set to the originating
    list).
    Why make the general list read only?
    Because it'll be too high volume for anyone to follow unless they are
    clinically insanity, in which case I wouldn't want to read their posts
    anyway.

    More seriously, why can't someone reading the "everything" list just
    respond to messages in the proper forum?

    --
    May the best description of competition prevail.
    (via, but not speaking for Deutsche Bank)
  • Graham Barr at Jul 24, 2000 at 8:32 pm

    On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:29:25PM -0400, Joshua Pritikin wrote:
    Why make the general list read only?
    Because it'll be too high volume for anyone to follow unless they are
    clinically insanity, in which case I wouldn't want to read their posts
    anyway.

    More seriously, why can't someone reading the "everything" list just
    respond to messages in the proper forum?
    Well they would need to, otherwise thier message my just not be read
    by those who matter.

    Graham.
  • Uri Guttman at Jul 24, 2000 at 8:37 pm
    "GB" == Graham Barr writes:
    GB> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 01:29:25PM -0400, Joshua Pritikin wrote:
    Why make the general list read only?
    >>
    Because it'll be too high volume for anyone to follow unless they are
    clinically insanity, in which case I wouldn't want to read their posts
    anyway.
    >>
    More seriously, why can't someone reading the "everything" list just
    respond to messages in the proper forum?
    GB> Well they would need to, otherwise thier message my just not be read
    GB> by those who matter.

    and remember the point i made, reply-to in mail from the general read
    only list is set to the list that generated the message. so a normal
    reply WILL go to the correct list. this is a way to lurk on all the
    entire perl6 set of lists and keep the threads in the proper list.

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman --------- uri@sysarch.com ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
    SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
    The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
    The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
  • Graham Barr at Jul 24, 2000 at 8:42 pm

    On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 04:37:00PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
    and remember the point i made, reply-to in mail from the general read
    only list is set to the list that generated the message. so a normal
    reply WILL go to the correct list. this is a way to lurk on all the
    entire perl6 set of lists and keep the threads in the proper list.
    I don't think the lists should set the reply-to at all. That way
    any reply will go to those on to To/Cc lists of the Email.

    Graham.
  • Uri Guttman at Jul 24, 2000 at 8:49 pm
    "GB" == Graham Barr writes:
    GB> On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 04:37:00PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
    and remember the point i made, reply-to in mail from the general read
    only list is set to the list that generated the message. so a normal
    reply WILL go to the correct list. this is a way to lurk on all the
    entire perl6 set of lists and keep the threads in the proper list.
    GB> I don't think the lists should set the reply-to at all. That way
    GB> any reply will go to those on to To/Cc lists of the Email.

    <flame on>

    now we have the old reply-to set to list or not war. if you are on a
    list, i say reply-to should go to the list. it is the more common
    operation. but as with all holy wars the infidels disagree. even here, i
    am sometimes getting useless multiple copies if i get cc'ed and the list
    message as well. i try toremove the extra cc's on my outgoing mail but
    setting reply-to fixes that.

    <flame off>

    uri

    --
    Uri Guttman --------- uri@sysarch.com ---------- http://www.sysarch.com
    SYStems ARCHitecture, Software Engineering, Perl, Internet, UNIX Consulting
    The Perl Books Page ----------- http://www.sysarch.com/cgi-bin/perl_books
    The Best Search Engine on the Net ---------- http://www.northernlight.com
  • Ask Bjoern Hansen at Jul 25, 2000 at 1:45 am
    On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Uri Guttman wrote:

    [...]
    now we have the old reply-to set to list or not war. if you are on a
    list, i say reply-to should go to the list. it is the more common
    operation. but as with all holy wars the infidels disagree. even here,
    and it doesn't matter as long as I'm maintaining the list software.

    read: http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

    besides running qmail/ezmlm that's probably the only thing I'm not
    going to bend on.
    i am sometimes getting useless multiple copies if i get cc'ed
    and the list message as well.
    I find having this:

    :0 Wh: msgid.lock
    formail -D 16384 .msgid.cache
    in my .procmailrc very useful.


    - ask

    --
    ask bjoern hansen - <http://www.netcetera.dk/~ask/>
    more than 70M impressions per day, <http://valueclick.com>
  • Skud at Jul 25, 2000 at 12:57 am
    The Debian mailing list model *might* work here.

    Their rule is that if you are a Debian developer (which is an official
    term, over there) you *must* follow the debian-devel-announce mailing
    list. Meanwhile, there is a big, noisy, occasionally flame-ridden list
    called debian-devel which many developers subscribe to, and a number of
    more focussed lists such as debian-policy, debian-doc, etc.

    The way it works is that conversation occurs either on -devel or on the
    smaller lists, and when something important is decided or happens it is
    posted to -devel-announce. Conversations on -devel which are very
    specialised eventually end up moving elsewhere, usually after someone
    mentions "hey, shouldn't we be talking about this on the foo list?"

    The effect is that anyone who wants to plunge in and get a general
    overview subscribes to -devel; anyone who is involved in development but
    doesn't have the time/energy for -devel subscribes to -devel-announce
    and whatever specialised group interest them.

    K.


    --
    Kirrily Robert -- <skud@netizen.com.au> -- http://netizen.com.au/
    Open Source development, consulting and solutions
    Level 10, 500 Collins St, Melbourne VIC 3000
    Phone: +61 3 9614 0949 Fax: +61 3 9614 0948 Mobile: +61 410 664 994
  • Stephen Zander at Jul 25, 2000 at 3:59 pm
    "skud" == skud <skud@netizen.com.au> writes:
    skud> The way it works is that conversation occurs either on
    skud> -devel or on the smaller lists, and when something important
    skud> is decided or happens it is posted to -devel-announce.
    skud> Conversations on -devel which are very specialised
    skud> eventually end up moving elsewhere, usually after someone
    skud> mentions "hey, shouldn't we be talking about this on the foo
    skud> list?"

    But they don't move fast enough or often enough. While -devel is
    *supposed* to be about technical discussions only, this regularly does
    not happen. Because people continually fail to adhere to this,
    debian-devel can be far worse than p5p. Getting real work done in
    that environment is next to impossible, a problem bemoaned on
    debian-devel on a regular basis and the reason the other lists exist
    at all.

    --
    Stephen

    "So.. if she weighs the same as a duck.. she's made of wood." "And
    therefore?" "A witch!"

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
groupbootstrap @
categoriesperl
postedJul 24, '00 at 3:37p
activeJul 25, '00 at 3:59p
posts11
users7
websiteperl.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2019 Grokbase