1. [GEN] Re: [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
- Posted by Dan B Moyer <DANMOYER at PRODIGY.NET>
Oct 13, 2000
-
Last edited Oct 14, 2000
Ben,
Thank you, & very well put. No one who has *objected* to excessive [WIN]
posts has responded to my concerns about the potential *usefulness* of
discussions about the *details* of the development of an application. If
something's posted, you (or someone *else*) *might* learn something from it;
if it's *not*, you can't. If it's posted, you can offer direction,
guidance, suggestions, questions; if it's not, you (and *everyone else*) is
left out. And as I said, no one who has *objections* has responded to this
concern.
The only reason I support the suggestion that the list be split is to give
equal weight to both concerns, (too much vs too little), but I take your
point that they're not exactly equal: too much can be filtered or ignored,
but too little can't be filtered "in". But then there's the question of
"confusion" if the list were split. Sigh. But the question of splitting it
might be moot, anyway, 'cause Robert hasn't said anything one way or
another, & it's pretty much his list.
Oh, and do bear in mind that it is *Judith* who is continuing the
development of the IDE; I'm just looking for bugs & offering various
suggestions of things to consider including in it.
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Fosberg" <BenFosberg at ATT.NET>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: [GEN] Re: POLL: Split the List?
> In furtherance of 2c (sorry, I can't find a way to negate your second
concern)
> 
>
> Both concerns are valid, I agree - but not *equally* valid. It's possible
for
> subscribers to filter out posts irrelevant to their interests, but no
ethical or
> remotely feasible way exists to "filter in" your private email with other
> developers. While I personally at the moment am not interested in the many
posts
> regarding IDE details, I don't even bother to filter them out because "IDE
> problems" are not at all unique - sooner or later I expect I'll run into
similar
> ones, and will be glad to remember (or look up) what you've already
learned and
> documented.
>
> Personally, I think it's very ballsy and admirable of you to be willing to
> discuss your problems and mistakes in public. If the volume of traffic is
a real
> issue, we ought to direct the exclusionary attitudes toward the juvenile
"flame
> wars" over languages and OS's which are blatantly off-topic (and totally
> uninformative) - there are lots of alternate existing forums for that
activity.
>
> Ben
>
> Dan B Moyer wrote:
>
> > Bernie,
> >
> > I'm really conflicted on this issue. You, and Jiri (and probably
Wolfgang?)
> > (and possibly a substantial number of others?) would apparently like to
see
> > much fewer posts here relating to the *details* of the development of
> > Windows stuff.
> >
> > I have two concerns about this:
> >
> > 1. I can see your point, *and* I (also) don't want to piss off some of
the
> > best programmers on the list, both because it's just not my
style/nature,
> > and because I am, to be painfully honest, not very good at programming &
> > need all the help I can get (& pissing off the best obviously isn't a
good
> > way to go about getting that help); so with these in mind, I would be
> > inclined to simply take your advice, and refrain from posting questions
;
> > bug reports / suggestions about the development of the IDE and Win32Lib
> > *here*, and send such privately to the relevant developer(s);
> >
> > 2. However, a number of factors suggest otherwise:
> > a) Judith and I have both received private mail *requesting* keeping
the
> > IDE design *details* public, so that others can both *follow* the
direction
> > of its design, and offer comments relating to *guiding* that direction;
> > b) some on the list have indicated that they *appreciate* seeing the
> > detail of the development of the IDE, because it shows them that it's
being
> > worked on seriously ("...Judith sounds like she's picking at every damn
> > thing, which is very good to see someone beating away at it.");
> > c) when the details of the development of the IDE (or any other
project)
> > are public, problems which come up may be read by a wider audience, and
> > *solutions* offered from that wider audience which might not have
occurred
> > (or occurred as quickly) to the coder themselve(s), which is a good
thing,
> > and not outside the fundamental purpose of the list.
> >
> > The above two concerns seem to me to be entirely (and equally) valid; my
> > support for the suggestion to separate the list was just an effort to
> > attempt to reconcile *both* of them. I would welcome any better
suggestion
> > for reconciling *both* concerns, or arguments which negate my second
> > concern.
> >
> > Dan
> > (who wants to do the right thing)
> >
> > P.S.
> > sent to the list instead of private due to concern 2c
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Bernie" <xotron at PCOM.NET>
> > To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 8:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: POLL: Split the List?
> >
> > > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:01:37 +0930, Mark Brown <mabrown at SENET.COM.AU>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi Dan
> > > >
> > > >I vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
> > >
> > >
> > > I also vote a big NO WAY to splitting up the list.
> > >
> > > When david was working on the win32lib he didn't post to the list
> > > every time he change a line of code or came up with a different way
> > > of displaying a control. I am sure that david used a lot of private
> > > e-mail to design the win32lib and did not fill the list with
unnessary
> > > details.
> > >
> > > A another list is not necessary, only send your details to the
> > developers
> > > of win32lib by private e-mail so the new users and old users can use
> > > the list to ask for help, and discuss other general topics including
> > > windows.
> > >
> > > Bernie
