I hope no one gets offended by my asking, but I wonder what others think about the possibility of splitting the list into two or three focal areas. Personally, I think I''d like to see three seperate lists: 1) newbie development (e.g., help working through tutorials, etc.) 2) more advanced development topics, 3) environment setup / admin.. What do you think? Best regards, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060714/7828716e/attachment.html
Bill Walton wrote:> I hope no one gets offended by my asking, but I wonder what others > think about the possibility of splitting the list into two or three > focal areas. Personally, I think I''d like to see three seperate > lists: 1) newbie development (e.g., help working through tutorials, > etc.) 2) more advanced development topics, 3) environment setup / > admin.. What do you think? > > Best regards, > Bill > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >This has been proposed in the past and was largely shot down on the basis that having more than one list will separate the new users from the veterans and in doing so make it very hard for questions to get answered. Additionally the line between advanced and intro/intermediate is often blurry and so the determination of where to submit certain items would be ambiguous. Matthew Margolis blog.mattmargolis.net
I''d had the same two thoughts, both that it would be good to have a newbie area, where they wouldn''t be embarrassed to ask straightforward questions and also to clean up this list a bit. However, I''m not sure that the more experienced users would end up looking at the newbie list. I personally try to answer at least two or three questions each time I''m tempted to ask one myself. Ironically, often, after doing that, I''ve had enough of a break from my problem that I end up solving it myself without ever asking it. Matthew Margolis wrote:> Bill Walton wrote: >> I hope no one gets offended by my asking, but I wonder what others >> think about the possibility of splitting the list into two or three >> focal areas. Personally, I think I''d like to see three seperate >> lists: 1) newbie development (e.g., help working through tutorials, >> etc.) 2) more advanced development topics, 3) environment setup / >> admin.. What do you think? >> >> Best regards, >> Bill >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> > This has been proposed in the past and was largely shot down on the > basis that having more than one list will separate the new users from > the veterans and in doing so make it very hard for questions to get > answered. Additionally the line between advanced and > intro/intermediate is often blurry and so the determination of where > to submit certain items would be ambiguous. > > Matthew Margolis > blog.mattmargolis.net > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Hi Matthew, Matthew Margolis wrote:> This has been proposed in the pastI should have explicitly recognized in my posting that I''m sure this has been discussed before and assume that it was rejected at that time as inappropriate (else there''d already be more than one list). At the same time, as circumstances are bound to change over time, I believe it''s valid to revisit questions of organization from time to time.> and was largely shot down on the basis that having more than one list will > separate the new users from the veteransJust to make sure we''re on the same page, I do not proposed restricting membership. Only to providing focal points. I, for one, would join all three. In one I''d be more active wrt posting questions, in another more active wrt answering them, and in the third I''d be in a quiet learning / monitoring mode.> and in doing so make it very hard for questions to get answered.In defense of the idea, I''d also recognize that sheer volume also makes it very hard for questions to get answered by making it easy for them to get "lost in the pile." Additionally, my own experience has been that I find it easier to understand questions from and provide answers to folks who are at a similar "level".> Additionally the line between advanced and intro/intermediate is often > blurryVery true. But again, from my own experience, I''ve had a pretty good feeling as to whether I was asking a ''newbie'' question or a ''nuance / detail'' question. Also, while the line is often blurry from a development topic perspective, I think the distinction between development vs. setup / admin. is less so.> and so the determination of where to submit certain items would be > ambiguous.Again, I''m not proposing any membership restrictions. Depending on circumstances, a person might submit to one and then another based on feedback, or might submit to multiple from the get-go. Thanks for your thoughts and for the discussion! Best regards, Bill
I really don''t like the idea of a noobs list. It''s not a big deal for me. The newbie questions can sometimes be really informative, as you get to see how different people solve the same problem. That, and I like the way that this list, for the most part, makes people feel welcome. OSS is, of course, a give-and-take community. Noobs are expected to ask questions, gain knowledge, and then give back to the next generation. now... I might be in favor of a rails-deployment list though.... On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:> > Hi Matthew, > > Matthew Margolis wrote: > > > This has been proposed in the past > > I should have explicitly recognized in my posting that I''m sure this has > been discussed before and assume that it was rejected at that time as > inappropriate (else there''d already be more than one list). At the same > time, as circumstances are bound to change over time, I believe it''s valid > to revisit questions of organization from time to time. > > > and was largely shot down on the basis that having more than one list > will > > separate the new users from the veterans > > Just to make sure we''re on the same page, I do not proposed restricting > membership. Only to providing focal points. I, for one, would join all > three. In one I''d be more active wrt posting questions, in another more > active wrt answering them, and in the third I''d be in a quiet learning / > monitoring mode. > > > and in doing so make it very hard for questions to get answered. > > In defense of the idea, I''d also recognize that sheer volume also makes it > very hard for questions to get answered by making it easy for them to get > "lost in the pile." Additionally, my own experience has been that I find > it > easier to understand questions from and provide answers to folks who are > at > a similar "level". > > > Additionally the line between advanced and intro/intermediate is often > > blurry > > Very true. But again, from my own experience, I''ve had a pretty good > feeling as to whether I was asking a ''newbie'' question or a ''nuance / > detail'' question. Also, while the line is often blurry from a development > topic perspective, I think the distinction between development vs. setup / > admin. is less so. > > > and so the determination of where to submit certain items would be > > ambiguous. > > Again, I''m not proposing any membership restrictions. Depending on > circumstances, a person might submit to one and then another based on > feedback, or might submit to multiple from the get-go. > > Thanks for your thoughts and for the discussion! > > Best regards, > Bill > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060714/3bfd2051/attachment.html
Hey guys, I found two pennies to rub together on this. How about a better taxonomy for the questions? The system already marks message subjects with [Rails]. How about marking message subjects like: [Rails][Newbie] [Rails][Advanced] [Rails][Deployment] We should still keep one list with no membership restrictions, so a post to any of these lists still posts to the entire list. I could, in theory, route messages for the advanced list to a separate folder in my e-mail client. Maybe there''s a better taxonomy out there. The point is that I agree that the volume of the list makes me gloss over a lot of questions very quickly, thus reducing the probability of me answering a question. Now I''ve spent my two cents. -Anthony On Jul 14, 2006, at 10:31 AM, Bill Walton wrote:> Hi Matthew, > > Matthew Margolis wrote: > >> This has been proposed in the past > > I should have explicitly recognized in my posting that I''m sure > this has been discussed before and assume that it was rejected at > that time as inappropriate (else there''d already be more than one > list). At the same time, as circumstances are bound to change over > time, I believe it''s valid to revisit questions of organization > from time to time. > >> and was largely shot down on the basis that having more than one >> list will separate the new users from the veterans > > Just to make sure we''re on the same page, I do not proposed > restricting membership. Only to providing focal points. I, for > one, would join all three. In one I''d be more active wrt posting > questions, in another more active wrt answering them, and in the > third I''d be in a quiet learning / monitoring mode. > >> and in doing so make it very hard for questions to get answered. > > In defense of the idea, I''d also recognize that sheer volume also > makes it very hard for questions to get answered by making it easy > for them to get "lost in the pile." Additionally, my own > experience has been that I find it easier to understand questions > from and provide answers to folks who are at a similar "level". > >> Additionally the line between advanced and intro/intermediate is >> often blurry > > Very true. But again, from my own experience, I''ve had a pretty > good feeling as to whether I was asking a ''newbie'' question or a > ''nuance / detail'' question. Also, while the line is often blurry > from a development topic perspective, I think the distinction > between development vs. setup / admin. is less so. > >> and so the determination of where to submit certain items would be >> ambiguous. > > Again, I''m not proposing any membership restrictions. Depending on > circumstances, a person might submit to one and then another based > on feedback, or might submit to multiple from the get-go. > > Thanks for your thoughts and for the discussion! > > Best regards, > Bill > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Hi Chris, Chris T wrote:> I''d had the same two thoughts, both that it would be good to have a newbie > area, where they wouldn''t be embarrassed to ask straightforward questionsYou''ve captured the essence of my intent here. Also, the possibility of a split into development and setup/admin seems to me to be potentially less controversial. Do you see any issues with that?> However, I''m not sure that the more experienced users would end up looking > at the newbie list.I think this would be a self-correcting thing. If newbie''s don''t get their questions answered in one place, they _should_ ask in another. I know I personally would continue to help newbies, as I was helped and continue to be helped. What I''m suggesting is sort of a birds-of-a-feather thing, I guess. Thanks for your response and for the discussion! Best regards, Bill
Hi Brian, Brian Hogan wrote:> I really don''t like the idea of a noobs list. It''s not a big > deal for me. The newbie questions can sometimes be > really informative, as you get to see how different people > solve the same problem. That, and I like the way that this > list, for the most part, makes people feel welcome.I''m ambivalent on the split of development topics myself. OTOH, Chris T. captured the essence of my concern. One of the things I learned in a dozen years of managing teams is that there are a lot of folks who just won''t ask if there''s even a possibility they''ll get embarassed. That''s just how some people are. And both the person and the community suffer as a result of the question going unasked.> now... I might be in favor of a rails-deployment list though....I personally feel like this is a slam-dunk. But that''s just me ;-) Thanks! Best regards, Bill
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:41 -0400, Anthony Carlos wrote:> Hey guys, I found two pennies to rub together on this. > > How about a better taxonomy for the questions? The system already > marks message subjects with [Rails]. How about marking message > subjects like: > > [Rails][Newbie] > [Rails][Advanced] > [Rails][Deployment] > > We should still keep one list with no membership restrictions, so a > post to any of these lists still posts to the entire list. > > I could, in theory, route messages for the advanced list to a > separate folder in my e-mail client. Maybe there''s a better taxonomy > out there. The point is that I agree that the volume of the list > makes me gloss over a lot of questions very quickly, thus reducing > the probability of me answering a question. > > Now I''ve spent my two cents.---- there would be too few knowledgeable people answering questions on a ''newbie'' list and thus it would simply be newbies helping newbies...probably not a very good idea. Craig
> [Rails][Newbie] > [Rails][Advanced] > [Rails][Deployment]Hmm - that kind of assumes that the poster (and receivers) can tell what constitutes a newbie/advanced message. I think this would over complicate things. If you feel a thread isn''t one you''d like to take part in, then you just don''t read it. It''s not like we all have one level of knowledge - as previously mentioned sometimes you can be surprised by solutions that newbie discussions. What *is* important IMO is that we encourage well-crafted posts: descriptive subject lines (using [TAGS] if needs be) and content that outlines the point with relevant required information. And of course we''ve all been guilty of not searching the archives before posting :0) Today''s newbies are tomorrow''s experts and the last thing we want is to say to people "This should be posted in the ''newbie'' forum". On the whole, ruby and rails have a very friendly community and i think we should keep it that way. Steve
On 7/14/06, Craig White <craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote:> there would be too few knowledgeable people answering questions on a > ''newbie'' list and thus it would simply be newbies helping > newbies...probably not a very good idea.You would think that, but a similar setup was established with my local LUG and it has worked out very well for all: http://nlug.org/listserv.php -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/
Hi Anthony, Anthony Carlos wrote:> How about a better taxonomy for the questions?I think that''s really what I''m looking for in making my proposal. A context grouping.> The system already marks message subjects with [Rails]. How about marking > message subjects like: > > [Rails][Newbie] > [Rails][Advanced] > [Rails][Deployment]AFAIK, there are only a couple of ways to accomplish that: 1) make three lists, or 2) have folks mark their own. I wouldn''t be in favor of (2) from the ''safe haven'' perspective. It''s one thing to let folks decide which community they want to address. It''s quite another to ask them to explicitly label themselves. OTOH, seeing the above in print has caused my thinking to crystalize a bit. What would you think about: [Rails-tutorials] [Rails-development] [Rails-deployment] ?> We should still keep one list with no membership restrictions, so a post > to any of these lists still posts to the entire list.I honestly don''t see the benefit of one list with no membership restrictions over three lists with no membership restrictions. Help me out? Thanks for your comments and for the discussion! Best regards, Bill
Bill Walton wrote:> I hope no one gets offended by my asking, but I wonder what others think > about the possibility of splitting the list into two or three focal > areas. Personally, I think I''d like to see three seperate lists: 1) > newbie development (e.g., help working through tutorials, etc.) 2) more > advanced development topics, 3) environment setup / admin.. What do you > think? > > Best regards, > BillHey Bill, I think a split to two lists, development and deployment, this would allow new people to ask questions and get answers from advanced people, which adding a newbie list might interfere with, but also allows for the more advanced admin/devployment/long term questions to be asked, where they don''t clutter up the development list, and allows the more expert people in those fields to help out, if they don''t want to go through the crufty deveopment posts. Chris -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Hi Stephen, Stephen Bartholomew wrote:> Today''s newbies are tomorrow''s experts and the last thing we want is to > say to people "This should be posted in the ''newbie'' forum".I totally agree. Not at all what I''m after, but I can see that how I started out took us down this path. I''d be interested in your thoughts on... [Rails-tutorials] [Rails-development] [Rails-deployment] (or admin or something akin) To your point about subject-lines, etc., all my proposal is about is improving our ability to understand posts'' context.> On the whole, ruby and rails have a very friendly community and i think we > should keep it that way.Totally agree and hope that no one construes my intent as exclusionary in any way. It''s just the opposite in fact. For example, birds-of-a-feather sessions at conferences aren''t taken, IME, as exclusionary devices. They''re conveniences arranged so that folks can make the best use of their limited time. I''m suggesting a similar mechanism. Thanks for your comments and for the discussion! Best regards, Bill
On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:> Just to make sure we''re on the same page, I do not proposed restricting > membership. Only to providing focal points. I, for one, would join all > three. In one I''d be more active wrt posting questions, in another more > active wrt answering them, and in the third I''d be in a quiet learning / > monitoring mode.As nice as it would be, I''ve never seen a newbie area actually work. It quickly degenerates into the "I didn''t bother to read any documentation so please solve my problem for me" area. Maybe as a message board, with a simple credit system like the Hibernate forums use it would stand a chance. http://forum.hibernate.org/index.php http://forum.hibernate.org/credits.html -- James
I propose that we split the list into two: one list for Rails related discussion, and one in which to discuss splitting the list.
roflmao -----Original Message----- From: rails-bounces@lists.rubyonrails.org [mailto:rails-bounces@lists.rubyonrails.org] On Behalf Of Pete Yandell Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 11:46 AM To: rails@lists.rubyonrails.org Subject: Re: [Rails] Time to split the list? I propose that we split the list into two: one list for Rails related discussion, and one in which to discuss splitting the list. _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Hi Greg, Greg Donald wrote:> On 7/14/06, Craig White <craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote: >> there would be too few knowledgeable people answering questions on a >> ''newbie'' list and thus it would simply be newbies helping >> newbies...probably not a very good idea. > > You would think that, but a similar setup was established with my > local LUG and it has worked out very well for all: > http://nlug.org/listserv.phpThanks for joining the discussion and for the link to your list. Interesting! I do have reservations about the ''newbie'' label though that have becomre more pronounced as a result of the majority of responses. It really doesn''t capture what I''m hoping for. I''m not interested in labeling that someone might find demeaning, but am very much interested in providing context that will help them get help. Depending on a number of things (e.g., how big and how close are the ''gators ;-) ), the author of a posting may or may not be able to articulate a subject line that captures the topic they''re looking for help with. What do you think about the [Rails-tutorials] [Rails-development] [Rails-deployment] (or admin or something akin) suggestion? Thanks again! Bill
On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 10:13 -0500, Greg Donald wrote:> On 7/14/06, Craig White <craigwhite@azapple.com> wrote: > > there would be too few knowledgeable people answering questions on a > > ''newbie'' list and thus it would simply be newbies helping > > newbies...probably not a very good idea. > > You would think that, but a similar setup was established with my > local LUG and it has worked out very well for all: > http://nlug.org/listserv.php---- I know that I wouldn''t sub to a newbie list - not that I am such a big helper to newbies but I do try to help sometimes. Craig
On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:> I''m not interested in labeling that someone > might find demeaning,You''re seriously worried about this? Are we being trolled here?
Hi James, James Ludlow wrote:> As nice as it would be, I''ve never seen a newbie area actually work. It > quickly degenerates into the "I didn''t bother to read any documentation so > please solve my problem for me" area.I''m sorry now that I even used the word ''newbie'' in my original post ;-( It''s really not what I''m after. As I''ve said in other responses, I''m suggesting that providing context via context-specific lists could help posters get the kind of help they''re looking for by giving readers / potential helpers an easier way to identify those posts they might be able to help with.> Maybe as a message board, with a simple credit system like the > Hibernate forums use it would stand a chance.That''s an interesting approach. How long''s it been in use? Did it start out that way or did the list owners institute it later? Does it work well wrt turning newbies into contributors? Thanks again! Best regards, Bill
Hi James, James Ludlow wrote:> On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote: >> I''m not interested in labeling that someone >> might find demeaning, > > You''re seriously worried about this? Are we being trolled here?I''m not worried about it, but I get the feeling from some of the responses that the ''newbie'' label thing is a component of the objection to a more focused list structure. Bill
Pete Yandell wrote:>I propose that we split the list into two: one list for Rails related >discussion, and one in which to discuss splitting the list.Point taken ;-) It wasn''t my intent to make the problem worse. But I guess maybe I did. I''m done. Thanks, Bill
On 7/14/06, Chris T <ctmailinglists@googlemail.com> wrote:> it would be good to have a > newbie area, where they wouldn''t be embarrassed to ask straightforward > questionsAre newbies are intimidated by this list? The core and advanced developers who answer questions here or have in the past have been helpful to me. The Ruby world is very friendly. I think it would be great if newbies could learn to really boil their questions down to the essence of their problem before posting. But that''s part of being a newbie.> and also to clean up this list a bit.But people will repost to the advanced list if they don''t find a satisfactory solution on the newbie list. Then other newbies won''t see the solution there because they only read the newbie list. This will make searching the archives a bigger mess. Need to search multiple archives. If the list must split I''m more infavor of spliting by topic (eg development, deployment, core, scriptaculous) then by level of expertise.
Peter Michaux wrote:> On 7/14/06, Chris T <ctmailinglists@googlemail.com> wrote: >> it would be good to have a >> newbie area, where they wouldn''t be embarrassed to ask straightforward >> questions > > Are newbies are intimidated by this list? The core and advanced > developers who answer questions here or have in the past have been > helpful to me. The Ruby world is very friendly. > > I think it would be great if newbies could learn to really boil their > questions down to the essence of their problem before posting. But > that''s part of being a newbie. > >> and also to clean up this list a bit. > > But people will repost to the advanced list if they don''t find a > satisfactory solution on the newbie list. Then other newbies won''t see > the solution there because they only read the newbie list. This will > make searching the archives a bigger mess. Need to search multiple > archives. > > If the list must split I''m more infavor of spliting by topic (eg > development, deployment, core, scriptaculous) then by level of > expertise. > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >Splitting by expertise is hard to do. In my experience, most people won''t know which experise level they belong too. And we''re getting questions to rails-talk about simple ruby language issues already, which makes me wonder if any questions ever will go to the right list if we split it up. -- Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com) JvYAML, RbYAML, JRuby and Jatha contributor System Developer, Karolinska Institutet (http://www.ki.se) OLogix Consulting (http://www.ologix.com) "Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined.
On 7/14/06, Peter Michaux <petermichaux@gmail.com> wrote:> If the list must split I''m more infavor of spliting by topic (eg > development, deployment, core, scriptaculous) then by level of > expertise. >Please add to the topics something like "list for discussing Mac vs Linux Distro vs Windows for development" and one good old "offtopic" list
On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:> > Maybe as a message board, with a simple credit system like the > > Hibernate forums use it would stand a chance. > > That''s an interesting approach. How long''s it been in use? Did it start > out that way or did the list owners institute it later? Does it work well > wrt turning newbies into contributors?IIRC it was put into place in early 2005. It was not in place when the message board was started. What happened was the developers and core team members kept spending more and more time answering the same questions over and over again, or simply ignoring the questions. Some other would help answer, but generally it was a n00b flood of people who didn''t bother to read the docs. So they came up with the credit system. New posters can start 10 threads (one credit per thread). You can earn new credits by answering questions. Anyone who starts a thread can award three replies with a credit point. Some people, of which I was one, started collecting points for the fun of it, resulting in a spreading of the workload for answering basic questions. The easy questions are low-hanging fruit. Lots of people would answer them quickly to get the points. And at the same time, as the newbies run out of points, they''re inclined to open the docs once in a while and answer some questions on their own. This had the result of leaving more time for the dev team to answer the challenging questions, and generally made the board much better (imo). -- James
On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:> > On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote: > >> I''m not interested in labeling that someone > >> might find demeaning, > > > > You''re seriously worried about this? Are we being trolled here? > > I''m not worried about it, but I get the feeling from some of the responses > that the ''newbie'' label thing is a component of the objection to a more > focused list structure.Seriously, this list is extremely n00b-friendly. If the label itself is enough to scare people away, they should go back in time to the heyday of comp.lang.perl.misc and deal with Abigail for a while. Kids these days have it eeeeeasy. -- James
Everyone might like to look at the original discussion: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.ruby.rails/34137/focus=34247 Additionally, two great places to categorize your questions beyond the [noob] or [OT] designators is: Rails Forum: http://railsforum.com/ And additionally you may use credit-based: Rails Weenie: http://rails.techno-weenie.net/ Doesn?t this pretty much satisfy the needs? --steve On 7/14/06 9:16 AM, "James Ludlow" <jamesludlow@gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote: >>> > > On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote: >>>> > >> I''m not interested in labeling that someone >>>> > >> might find demeaning, >>> > > >>> > > You''re seriously worried about this? Are we being trolled here? >> > >> > I''m not worried about it, but I get the feeling from some of the responses >> > that the ''newbie'' label thing is a component of the objection to a more >> > focused list structure. > > Seriously, this list is extremely n00b-friendly. If the label itself > is enough to scare people away, they should go back in time to the > heyday of comp.lang.perl.misc and deal with Abigail for a while. > > Kids these days have it eeeeeasy. > > -- James > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060714/3935d2f3/attachment.html
In a way it would be ok. But reading all the posts here about this I am missing one key element. The need. The reason for why the current system is not working. It''s not like this mailing list is overflooding with messages. It''s got a healthy dose of messages and I find it quite easy to handle the load of information. On 7/14/06, Bill Walton <bill.walton@charter.net> wrote:> > > I hope no one gets offended by my asking, but I wonder what others think > about the possibility of splitting the list into two or three focal areas. > Personally, I think I''d like to see three seperate lists: 1) newbie > development (e.g., help working through tutorials, etc.) 2) more advanced > development topics, 3) environment setup / admin.. What do you think? > > Best regards, > Bill > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >-- -------------- Jon Gretar Borgthorsson http://www.jongretar.net/
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson wrote:> In a way it would be ok. But reading all the posts here about this I > am missing one key element. The need. The reason for why the current > system is not working.> It''s not like this mailing list is overflooding with messages. It''s > got a healthy dose of messages and I find it quite easy to handle the > load of information.I guess you don''t have 30,000 unread messages in your rails mailbox like I do. ;) I don''t see a need to split the list -- I do read a fair chunk of it, just less than I used to. -- _Deirdre web / blog: http://deirdre.net/ "Memes are a hoax! Pass it on!"
On 7/14/06, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson <jon.borgthorsson@gmail.com> wrote:> In a way it would be ok. But reading all the posts here about this I > am missing one key element. The need. The reason for why the current > system is not working. > It''s not like this mailing list is overflooding with messages. It''s > got a healthy dose of messages and I find it quite easy to handle the > load of information.I don''t like the idea of splitting the list, but I disagree that the amount of traffic is manageable. I use Gmail (like you?) so only see the e-mails at the conversation level, but if I don''t go through them at least once a day, I wind up with a backlog of page after page after page of unread messages. During spring break I didn''t check my e-mail, and it wasn''t until a week or so ago that I finally got through the thousands of conversations. Sincerely, Tom Lieber http://AllTom.com/ http://GadgetLife.org/
On 7/14/06, Deirdre Saoirse Moen <deirdre@deirdre.net> wrote:> On Fri, 14 Jul 2006, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson wrote: > > > In a way it would be ok. But reading all the posts here about this I > > am missing one key element. The need. The reason for why the current > > system is not working. > > > It''s not like this mailing list is overflooding with messages. It''s > > got a healthy dose of messages and I find it quite easy to handle the > > load of information. > > I guess you don''t have 30,000 unread messages in your rails mailbox like > I do. ;)I''m at over 10,000 unread threads, but with Gmail it''s very manageable. I''ve been told that the DevLists search tool is going to be improved at some point this year. Once that happens, I''ll most likely switch to that and empty my Gmail archives.
I use Gmail to deal with this list, and I find that healthy use of the delete button makes everything manageable. A quick scan shows me which threads require further attention... these get archived. The rest get disappeared. I find that whether a topic is a newbie no-brainer or something that will change the way you code forever, you''ll see it again. Just learn to let go :) As for splitting the list, this issue comes up on *all* lists eventually.>From what I have seen, it is inevitably a bad move. Separating the peoplewho do know what is going on from the people who don''t helps the first group (who doesn''t necessarily need help) at the expense of the second (who clearly do need help, even if it is just to be pointed to a useful book or website.) - foobario On 7/14/06, Tom Lieber <alltom@gmail.com> wrote:> > On 7/14/06, Jon Gretar Borgthorsson <jon.borgthorsson@gmail.com> wrote: > > In a way it would be ok. But reading all the posts here about this I > > am missing one key element. The need. The reason for why the current > > system is not working. > > It''s not like this mailing list is overflooding with messages. It''s > > got a healthy dose of messages and I find it quite easy to handle the > > load of information. > > I don''t like the idea of splitting the list, but I disagree that the > amount of traffic is manageable. I use Gmail (like you?) so only see > the e-mails at the conversation level, but if I don''t go through them > at least once a day, I wind up with a backlog of page after page after > page of unread messages. During spring break I didn''t check my e-mail, > and it wasn''t until a week or so ago that I finally got through the > thousands of conversations. > > Sincerely, > > Tom Lieber > http://AllTom.com/ > http://GadgetLife.org/ > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060714/7f197815/attachment.html
On 7/14/06, James Ludlow <jamesludlow@gmail.com> wrote:> > empty my Gmail archives.How can I do that faster than just deleting 100 at a time? Thanks, Peter
On 7/14/06, Peter Michaux <petermichaux@gmail.com> wrote:> > empty my Gmail archives. > > How can I do that faster than just deleting 100 at a time?Hook a local client up to it, pull them all down via POP. -- Greg Donald http://destiney.com/
On 7/14/06, Greg Donald <gdonald@gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/14/06, Peter Michaux <petermichaux@gmail.com> wrote: > > > empty my Gmail archives. > > > > How can I do that faster than just deleting 100 at a time? > > Hook a local client up to it, pull them all down via POP.Thanks Greg. I imagine pulling down 20000 messages might take some time. Peter
On 7/14/06, Peter Michaux <petermichaux@gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/14/06, James Ludlow <jamesludlow@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > empty my Gmail archives. > > How can I do that faster than just deleting 100 at a time? > > Thanks, > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/railsIf you go to a label, click "All" under the Select row above your messages, the gray bar below will say, "You have selected 30 messages with this label. Click her to select all messages with this label", and it will select all 10,000 of your messages that have the Rails List label.
If you''re on Windows and can use Pegasus32. I believe it still has the ability to delete from server w/o downloading. Haven''t used it in awhile though. :) -Larry On 7/14/06, Peter Michaux <petermichaux@gmail.com> wrote:> > On 7/14/06, Greg Donald <gdonald@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 7/14/06, Peter Michaux <petermichaux@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > empty my Gmail archives. > > > > > > How can I do that faster than just deleting 100 at a time? > > > > Hook a local client up to it, pull them all down via POP. > > Thanks Greg. I imagine pulling down 20000 messages might take some time. > > Peter > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- Best Regards, -Larry "Work, work, work...there is no satisfactory alternative." --- E.Taft Benson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://wrath.rubyonrails.org/pipermail/rails/attachments/20060714/6c092141/attachment-0001.html
On 7/14/06, foobario <mkrails@gmail.com> wrote:> I use Gmail to deal with this list, and I find that healthy use of the > delete button makes everything manageable. A quick scan shows me which > threads require further attention... these get archived. The rest get > disappeared.I use gmail too. But I don''t delete anything. Using rules I tag everything that comes under this list and many others as WebDev and make the rule archive it automatically. I don''t mind that the WebDev tag shows 10.445 unread messages as long as my inbox is empty. The things I want to remember are then starred for reference.> > I find that whether a topic is a newbie no-brainer or something that will > change the way you code forever, you''ll see it again. Just learn to let go > :)It''s just not in my way these messages. So I don''t bother wasting my time deleting. It''s not like I''m running out of space. And I star those I want to remember for the future.> > As for splitting the list, this issue comes up on *all* lists eventually. > From what I have seen, it is inevitably a bad move. Separating the people > who do know what is going on from the people who don''t helps the first group > (who doesn''t necessarily need help) at the expense of the second (who > clearly do need help, even if it is just to be pointed to a useful book or > website.)I agree. -- -------------- Jon Gretar Borgthorsson http://www.jongretar.net/