Who maintains ruby-talk?
in [Ruby]
|
Prev: how can i add tones to my pc's sound card
Next: Undefined method `ire' with rubygems on mswin32
From: Dylan Northrup on 14 Apr 2010 16:09 A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Intransition wrote: :=Of course, if your heart is set on using your inbox, then the trick is :=to black list people like thunk --of course then you'll miss it when :=thunk actually says something useful... well maybe not, but you get :=the point. And you'll get false negatives as well when people respond to him because they aren't filtering. Centralized filtering reduces the chances that someone else will respond in addition to reducing the overall bandwidth usage of the list. :=I setup the Google Group archive, and I can black list people at that :=end if I want, I have never done so (expect obvious spam). I almost :=did so for thunk however. But in the end I decided just to give it a :=few days, and as usually the noise eventually died down. I am currently taking a wait and see attitude as well. . . but if things don't improve, unsubscribing is definitely an option. -- Dylan Northrup - docx(a)io.com - http://www.io.com/~docx/ "Adversity is just change that we haven't adapted ourselves to yet." - Aimee Mullins
From: H- 16 on 14 Apr 2010 16:10 You know, just my two cents but I've been on several forum sites with moderators. All the things you're worried about, just plain doesn't exsist if you have the right people as moderators. People who really care about the site. And it seems to me that you are thinking of only one mod. Why not have more? Any mod who misuses his power can be brough back into line by the others. And if someone who is kicked shouldn't have been, one can always go back and lift the ban. There's no real harm in having a mod and there's lots to gain... just look at thunk! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Dylan Northrup on 14 Apr 2010 16:15 A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Josh Cheek wrote: :=But at this point, people calling for moderation haven't even qualified :=their complaints. Thunk is a jackass. His posts are about Ruids and ThunkGen do nothing to improve the community or contribute to anyone's understanding of ruby, IMO. If his posts and all responses that they generated (including this thread, by the way) had not occurred, the ruby list would be no worse and, again IMO, would be much better. There, someone said it directly instead of talking around what everyone who's been paying attention to the list already knows. :=If you want moderation, please explicitly lay out examples of issues you :=have, and why you think a moderator would resolve these. Make Thunk's posts require moderation. Someone has to approve his posts. If they contribute something worthwhile, the post is forwarded on. If they're more of his inane "I'VE GOT AN AWESOME IDEA BUT I WON'T DISCUSS IT WITH ANYONE UNLESS THEY SIGN AN NDA, BUT THEY REALLY NEED TO BECAUSE IT'S AWESOME!@!!!" e-mails then they are sent to /dev/null. Overall traffic on the list goes down, signal to noise ratio goes up and we can get back to talking about things far more interesting than e-mail list moderation policies. -- Dylan Northrup - docx(a)io.com - http://www.io.com/~docx/ "Adversity is just change that we haven't adapted ourselves to yet." - Aimee Mullins
From: Justin Collins on 14 Apr 2010 18:18 Tony Arcieri wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:21 AM, Robert Klemme > <shortcutter(a)googlemail.com>wrote: > > >> Did you just suggest that ruby-talk should become a moderated list? >> >> > > Yes, given the recent high volume of off-topic posts, I think it's clear the > list is in need of a moderator, at the very least someone who can warn/ban > users who make high volumes of off-topic posts. > > I am not even sure moderation is a technical possibility. "ruby-talk" is actually an amalgam of a Google user group, a forum, and a mailing list, all of which are different systems run by different people. Spam is handled decently already. If a thread is off-topic, the community should be able to take care of it or ignore it, letting it die a natural death. -Justin
From: James Britt on 14 Apr 2010 20:08
Justin Collins wrote: > > I am not even sure moderation is a technical possibility. "ruby-talk" is > actually an amalgam of a Google user group, a forum, and a mailing list, > all of which are different systems run by different people. > > Spam is handled decently already. If a thread is off-topic, the > community should be able to take care of it or ignore it, letting it die > a natural death. Exactly correct. My off-the-top-of-my recollection of annoying threads is that a good deal of the longevity rests with people who continue to engage the original poster. If some proposed moderator is going to ban people responsible for junk postings, will they also boot people who feed the trolls? They're responsible for the noise problem as well. Rather than try to change the behavior of trolls and such (you won't, so don't bother), how about reserving that ire for the people who encourage them? -- James Britt www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff www.neurogami.com - Smart application development |