One thing that we are often blamed for is trying to stifle conversations and to discourage people from commenting / contributing / encouraging conversations. And that cant be further from the truth, really. We are all pro-community ( and when I say we, I mean everyone - including the contributors, developers, admins, users, abusers and hey upstream too ). However, one thing that does get in the way, often, and something that we all feel creates a higher 'noise' ratio is conversations on this list about semi-related stuff, but not something that directly contributes to the general users of CentOS. Conversations that specifically address four areas: - technologies - best practices - deployment strategies and tools - management strategies and tools And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list. Over a period of time, we would like to see the CentOS list become a more user help and distro specific list, with generic conversations moving to the centos-tech list. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
Karanbir Singh wrote:> And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage > such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list.Also, all comments are welcome! If there is a general feeling that this would help, then we will go ahead and setup the new list in the next few days. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
Karanbir Singh wrote:> > However, one thing that does get in the way, often, and something that > we all feel creates a higher 'noise' ratio is conversations on this > list about semi-related stuff, but not something that directly > contributes to the general users of CentOS. Conversations that > specifically address four areas: > > - technologies > - best practices > - deployment strategies and tools > - management strategies and tools > > And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further > encourage such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' > list. > > Over a period of time, we would like to see the CentOS list become a > more user help and distro specific list, with generic conversations > moving to the centos-tech list. >Sounds like a great idea, :)
On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:52:44 +0100 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:> And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage > such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list.Sounds like a whale of a plan. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com DRY CLEANER BUSINESS FOR SALE ~ http://www.canadadrycleanerforsale.com
Karanbir Singh wrote:> One thing that we are often blamed for is trying to stifle conversations > and to discourage people from commenting / contributing / encouraging > conversations. And that cant be further from the truth, really. We are > all pro-community ( and when I say we, I mean everyone - including the > contributors, developers, admins, users, abusers and hey upstream too ). >I would agree with a centos-tech list, and would definitely join. I agree, I think often times people are discouraged from asking simpler questions that aren't related to CentOS on the main list. Being a part of the centos-docs list, I see a different level of conversation and communication over there, compared to the main list. Posts seem much more relaxed, and people are able to discuss things and express ideas without fear of being yelled out about something, or being told what is definitely wrong or right. If a centos-tech list encourages this behavior, count my vote for yes. Regards, Max
Karanbir Singh wrote:> One thing that we are often blamed for is trying to stifle conversations > and to discourage people from commenting / contributing / encouraging > conversations. And that cant be further from the truth, really. We are > all pro-community ( and when I say we, I mean everyone - including the > contributors, developers, admins, users, abusers and hey upstream too ). > > However, one thing that does get in the way, often, and something that > we all feel creates a higher 'noise' ratio is conversations on this list > about semi-related stuff, but not something that directly contributes to > the general users of CentOS. Conversations that specifically address > four areas: > > - technologies > - best practices > - deployment strategies and tools > - management strategies and toolsI don't know whether that will take off...has not it been tried outside centos.org by centos list members already?> > And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage > such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list.They sound like 'general' stuff that lot.> > Over a period of time, we would like to see the CentOS list become a > more user help and distro specific list, with generic conversations > moving to the centos-tech list. >How about a centos-help list instead?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:52 PM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:> And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage > such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list.There are probably as many (or more) threads that drift off topic as there are those that start out that way and are labeled as such. I don't think a new list is really going to help create the separation you seek. In fact, introducing a second list will probably generate many conversations on each list that really belong on the other. I have no trouble navigating the list as is (with gmail) and adding a new list would just mean another subscription to manage. If I subscribed, I would probably give the new list the same label, so it would all be the same to me. I favor one-stop shopping. My $0.02 -- Jeff
Karanbir Singh wrote:> Over a period of time, we would like to see the CentOS list > become a > more user help and distro specific list, with generic > conversations > moving to the centos-tech list. >perhaps that is why "core" issues in CentOS like the kernel and samba are ignored by the developers? Examples :- http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2008-October/066143.html http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2008-October/066154.html Upsream is blamed/misunderstood for a lot of things but even their developers take time to answer questions on the nahant-list or fedora-list in their spare time. If the CentOS devs don't have time to answer key questions such as on the kernel but have time to consider fragmenting the mailing list who wins/loses? If the devs have the choice to ignore the core stuff there is also the option of ignoring the non-core stuff. Spike.
Karanbir Singh wrote:> One thing that we are often blamed for is trying to stifle conversations > and to discourage people from commenting / contributing / encouraging > conversations. And that cant be further from the truth, really. We are > all pro-community ( and when I say we, I mean everyone - including the > contributors, developers, admins, users, abusers and hey upstream too ). > > However, one thing that does get in the way, often, and something that > we all feel creates a higher 'noise' ratio is conversations on this list > about semi-related stuff, but not something that directly contributes to > the general users of CentOS. Conversations that specifically address > four areas: > > - technologies > - best practices > - deployment strategies and tools > - management strategies and tools > > And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage > such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list. > > Over a period of time, we would like to see the CentOS list become a > more user help and distro specific list, with generic conversations > moving to the centos-tech list. >Hi I understand the eagerness to lower the "noise" ratio, but I think creating another list is not the solution, it will simply create an extra work for the people in the list "centos" in the sense that you will have to keep reminding people to use the "tech" list, or saying to newcomers that should sign for the "tech" list. Noise is the side effect of the success of the project CentOS. As the project grows, more people will be joining the list, and there will be more noise. In my opinion there aren't much "off-topic"/noise in this list. Regards Marcelo
I'm all for having less traffic on this list, but I don't have a good recipe for that. I doubt that splitting the list will really help much. As others have already said you will probably end up with two lists that have mixed conversations from the topics of both lists. And it won't help with the problem that there are more and more clueless posts where it is very clear that the person asking didn't even think a second about doing some research before asking here. Try and see. Kai -- Kai Sch?tzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
----- "Craig White" <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:> If you are going to go to multiple lists, might I suggest that you > have 1 system-admins list and 1 general-users list and you can tightly > control the system-admins list.I disagreed with the idea of creating a second list as originally proposed, however, I think two lists as you describe is a good middle ground and the remainder of this thread should be directed towards a compromise of this nature. -Ken
----- "John Hinton" <webmaster at ew3d.com> wrote:> Craig White wrote: > > > > If you are going to go to multiple lists, might I suggest that you > > have 1 system-admins list and 1 general-users list and you can tightly > > But I would like a bit more freedom on the sysadmin list. The ability > to get more in depth on particulars and include discussions of other > software which interacts with existing systems to aid in going > further... extending Centos so to speak.Do you think that by definition, the "system-admins" list should encompass that freedom? Linux system administration is not limited to bash scripting and configuring Apache virtual hosts, but also includes architecting multi-tiered, multi-faceted, multi-platform environments. I think the label of "system-admins" for a second list is going in the right direction. Maybe something a bit more specific, like CentOS-sysadmin-advanced? Not the best name, but conveys my idea. The understanding on that list is that the application of CentOS in real world environments can and should also be discussed. Eh? Yes, no, maybe? -Ken
Karanbir Singh wrote:> > And to better cater to these conversations, as well as further encourage > such content, we'd like to propose creating a 'centos-tech' list. > > Over a period of time, we would like to see the CentOS list become a > more user help and distro specific list, with generic conversations > moving to the centos-tech list.Nah. It will be too fragmented and people will never figure out the difference between the lists. Just my $0.02 -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/
I was interested in seeing what the actual vote results may be, so here's what I've calculated: New list as proposed - 5 Keep as is - 11 Either way - 2 Keep + update charter - 2 New list + new name/charter - 6 Not declared - 3 A few folks posted remarks, but I could not detect a vote - that's the not declared category. A few seemed to flip their vote through out the discussion - so I made a best guess as to their intent. I put myself into the keep as is category. -- tkb