[ruby-talk:14412] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.

>
>Subject: [ruby-talk:14384] Re: Separating the wheat from the chaff.
>   From: "W. Kent Starr" <[e-mail]>
>   Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 03:38:13 +0900
>     To: [e-mail] (ruby-talk ML)
>
>On Saturday 28 April 2001 13:23, Marc Butler wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>  Would it be possible to split the ruby-talk into two groups delineated by
>> subject matter?  My personal intuition is one group named 'community' for
>> discussion of predominantly non-technical issues such as Mascots, book
>> reviews, ruby group meetings, and "what other people said about ruby"
>> discussions.  The other list would be focused on technical concerns, such
>> as language problems, questions and patches.
>>
>>  I believe the level of sycophancy and politics on this list, is beginning
>> to swamp the technical material.  The non-technical material is at best of
>> only passing interest to me, and I hope I am not the only one who feels
>> this way.
>>
>>  I do not know how difficult this would be for the list manintainer. 
>> Considering the work for the list is volunteered (I assume.), I accept
>> their decision (or matz) as the final answer.
>>
>> Respectfully,
>> Marc.
>>
>> Yes, I expect to be flamed for this post.
>>
>> --
>> Political correctness is an euphemism for euphemism.
>> [e-mail]
>
>LOL re the sig! :-)
>
>No, you aren't going to be flamed. Personally, I have two problems with 
>splitting the list. (1) some people who _need_ or can benefit from, even if 
>the don't at the time fully understand, the technical information, may not be 
>subscribed to the 'technical' list; (2) some people who may _need_ or can 
>benefit from, even if they do not fully understand, the community 
>information, may not be subscribed to the community list.

I think this is a non-issue.  There is nothing to stop people subscribing to
both lists.  People wishing to subscribe will need to accquire the mailing list
manager address, the different lists can be listed there with a description of
intent.  Additionally the mail sent by the mailing list bot can list and describe
the lists.

>
>I guess it basically boils down to whether we, as individuals, prefer to 
>accept a 'technocracy' or whether we prefer a more well-rounded 'community'. 
>I tend to think that Ruby both favors and fosters the latter.
>
>There are a number of issues influencing technical decisions that have 
>nothing to do with technology per se but are the results of a broader base of 
>community values. (in Dave's words, loosely paraphrased, this would be a 
>'dampening effect') 
>
>And, there are a number of 'community values' that are strongly influenced by 
>the progress of technology. Separation of the two would IMO be a mistake.
>

This just seems sophistic to me.  I personally don't believe the community will
be 'dampened'.  To loosely paraphrase. :)  I personally I have no interest in
what I allude to as being non-technical issues.  I would like to avoid spending
clock cycles trying to separate the two.

>This suggestion, I strongly suspect, is based on the currently running 'Ruby 
>mascot' thread. And, while the discussion does nothing of significance to 
>advance the language, it is _very_ revealing re the personalities, life 
>experiences/choices and priorities of those who have contributed. Indirectly, 
>the subconscious awareness of these things by all will, in the long term, 
>subtly influence some of the technical decisions (like to RCR or not and why 
>or why not a given individual advocates one of the other)
>

The mascot thread was definitely the catalyst, though not the sole motivation.
I don't like the reactionary posts to criticism of the language either.  Clearly
they are of interest to some, and I believe like minded people should have the
forum to discuss these concerns.  I don't believe they need to be intermingled
with language usage questions, or language design concerns.

>To put things into perspective, there was, not long ago, a _very_ technical 
>thread running re some deep details of C/C++. This thread ran to over 100 
>posts, at which time suggestions were _then_also_ made re 'splitting the 
>list'. Consensus of opinion skewed to _not_ splitting; I believe I am not the 
>only one who derived value from that discussion even though parts of it are 
>beyond my experience level and most of it was very much off topic re Ruby per 
>se. 
>

I vaguely recall this thread.  You yourself point out it was technical.  I don't
recall menitioning threads 'off the topic of Ruby'.  Many other languages are
mentioned in this list.  This seems natural to on a mailing list concerned with
a programming language that people will refer to other languages.  I don't 
believe that people should be overly concerned with comments like the one that
sparked the 'From Guido with love.' thread.  Which seems more concerned with
Guidio than whether or not Guido had a useful cricticism of Ruby.  From the
thread I get the impression he just dismissed it out of hand.

>While it is, personally, not a difficulty for me to sub to both lists (or for 
>any of us at this point), it might in future be a problem for newcomers, who 
>may opt for one list or the other(s) based on description; they will be both 
>making a wrong decision for the wrong reasons, likely, and will definitely be 
>missing out on things of value.

You make too many assumptions here for this to be a sensible argument.  Who are
you to say what people will or will not do?

>
>OTOH it is not a problem for any of us to ignore posts in which we have no 
>interest. I temporarily ignore some threads (not for lack of interest but 
>rather time at the moment) but I save them for latter review. I personally 
>would prefer the convenience of a single list, but the way I have my 
>mailboxes set up, it doesn't really matter. Any objections I have to 
>splitting the list are a result of personal philosophy and not personal 
>convenience.

It is a problem for those of us who for one reason or another do not have
access to threaded mail readers, but who wish to participate on the list and
not the USENET gateway.  Filtering rules are also not available on all 
mail readers either, and typically need to be monitored for mis-fires.

It seems you feel the need to infer that my reasons are for personal convenience
and not personal philosophy.  I think this is unfortunate and underminds your
argument.

>
>At any rate, my 2 cents FWIW.

I feel it's worth addressing, FWIW.  I hope you find your argument well met.

>
>Regards,
>
>Kent Starr
>[e-mail]
>