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: Tony Arcieri on 15 Apr 2010 01:50 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Josh Cheek <josh.cheek(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps I've missed something, I thought this was a reaction to Thunk, but > he only posts in a few threads. > Hi, yes, you got it right. I read ruby-talk via e-mail. Given my present method of reading ruby-talk (via Gmail) it's been extremely distracting and hindered my ability to read other mailing lists. I use Gmail's multiple inbox feature to filter out mailing lists I'm subscribed to, and "high traffic" threads get priority, even if it's the same person sending dozens of messages to a single thread. Perhaps the method by which you read ruby-talk differs, but given my present mode of reading the list, thunk threads are eating up valuable second-inbox space. -- Tony Arcieri Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
From: Tony Arcieri on 15 Apr 2010 01:55 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Justin Collins <justincollins(a)ucla.edu>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. > As someone who has built a supersyndication system (in Ruby!), I completely do not buy this argument. As far as I am aware, the MLM of ruby-talk(a)ruby-lang.org is the central authority of the state of the mailing list, and everything else is just syndication. You're arguing that because ruby-talk is syndicated means it's uncontrollable? Bullshit. Unless I'm confused the MLM is the central authority. And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly. -- Tony Arcieri Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
From: Tony Arcieri on 15 Apr 2010 01:57 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM, James Britt <james.britt(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > This is precisely the case in which I feel a moderator should step in. Relying on "the community" to police itself is silly. Are you people really just a bunch of anarchists? I like moderation. -- Tony Arcieri Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
From: Tony Arcieri on 15 Apr 2010 02:00 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri(a)medioh.com>wrote: > And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some > pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone > from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly. > And as I realize code speaks louder than words, here you go. Here's some Ruby code to unsubscribe someone from ruby-talk without their permission. This particular snippet is set up to unsubscribe thunk from ruby-talk. Feel free to modify it to unsubscribe whoever you like: http://gist.github.com/365142 I send you this only to point out that ruby-talk is very much insecure, especially for anyone who reads it via email. -- Tony Arcieri Medioh! A Kudelski Brand
From: Josh Cheek on 15 Apr 2010 02:27
[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> wrote: > Might be losing. Might not. Part of the point is that you think a bit > about what you WANT from moderation -- then you set things up to get it. > And then your Frankenstein eats you ;| On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:55 AM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri(a)medioh.com>wrote: > And, oh by the way, as I referenced in the OP, the MLM is subject to some > pretty ridiculous security vulnerabilities. Anyone can unsubscribe anyone > from ruby-talk, so long as the read it via e-mail. That's silly. If that's the case, you have a legitimate point, but I see it as distinct from establishing a moderator. On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Tony Arcieri <tony.arcieri(a)medioh.com>wrote: > This is precisely the case in which I feel a moderator should step in. > Relying on "the community" to police itself is silly. > > Are you people really just a bunch of anarchists? I like moderation. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson ********** I find it rather curious that in the thread Tony starts, out of concern for spammers and security holes, he posts 4 times in a row over the course of ten minutes, and links to code that can be used to remove anyone from the list. Isn't he advocating an institution which, upon it's inception, would be obligated to ban him? |