On 6/1/07, Peter Gruessing <reviewdirector@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought this was a Debian Linux mailing list?>????

Yes, this is, but there is often accusation, that this is list for
users of Debian, and as such, may contain any discussions of Debian
users.

What i have to propose - create separate ML for offtopic discussions.
A little background for this:

I'm involved in European student organization, and about half year ago
a separate ML was created, named junk@. It has no rules, and people
are encouraged to discuss there anything silly/political/religious,
without any consequences. What have become of it - it's really
strengthening community, making people to know each other better. Not
to mention, that other MLs have become much cleaner and topic-related.

Regards,
Atis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Nyizsnyik Ferenc wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 18:23:08 +0300
> Atis <atis@BEST.eu.org> wrote:
>
>
>> On 6/1/07, Peter Gruessing <reviewdirector@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I thought this was a Debian Linux mailing list?>????
>>>
>> Yes, this is, but there is often accusation, that this is list for
>> users of Debian, and as such, may contain any discussions of Debian
>> users.
>>
>> What i have to propose - create separate ML for offtopic discussions.
>> A little background for this:
>>
>> I'm involved in European student organization, and about half year ago
>> a separate ML was created, named junk@. It has no rules, and people
>> are encouraged to discuss there anything silly/political/religious,
>> without any consequences. What have become of it - it's really
>> strengthening community, making people to know each other better. Not
>> to mention, that other MLs have become much cleaner and topic-related.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Atis
>>
>>
>>
>
> Yes, but offtopic threads evolve from on-topic ones. It would be very
> annoying to see posts like this:
>
> ... this is I could do to you, and see my offtopic opinion on
> junk@list.
>
> Not to mention that when people not subscribed to the debian-user
> list read an offtopic reaction without the previous context (users
> will almost always forget to include it), most likely they will post
> several "What are you referring to?" answers.
>
> I just wanted to say that it's a good idea to have an unmoderated
> "offtopic" list, but it wouldn't reduce much of this list's offtopic
> messages.
>
>
Personally I like the anarchy of this OT stuff - and respect that people
*do* mark the subject line as [OT] which is entirely appropriate because
it enables those who do not want to pursue OT threads to scroll on by.

I say - keep it as it is.

A

--

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers." - Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

On 6/1/07, Nyizsnyik Ferenc <nyizsa@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Atis <atis@BEST.eu.org> wrote:
> > What i have to propose - create separate ML for offtopic discussions.

> Yes, but offtopic threads evolve from on-topic ones. It would be very
> annoying to see posts like this:
>
> ... this is I could do to you, and see my offtopic opinion on
> junk@list.

Ok, how i imagine this working regarding Debian lists.

Include offtopic@ in to, the same way as you include [OT] in subject.
If you also answer on topic, just include both MLs.

> Not to mention that when people not subscribed to the debian-user
> list read an offtopic reaction without the previous context (users
> will almost always forget to include it), most likely they will post
> several "What are you referring to?" answers.

That's true, in organization i mentioned for sample, junk@ is actually
one of largest MLs. However, as OT posters usually take out some
phrase, nobody really cares what was initial topic. And usually there
are few quotes left within reply.

>
> I just wanted to say that it's a good idea to have an unmoderated
> "offtopic" list, but it wouldn't reduce much of this list's offtopic
> messages.

If there would be official offtopic list, rules regarding OT posts in
other MLs could be more strict.

Generally separate OT list would contain anything about life, some
funny things, and so on..

Regards,
Atis


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Atis wrote in Article
<945196e0706010823l33794877yafc1ac8af06d40e@mail.g mail.com> posted to
gmane.linux.debian.user:

> What i have to propose - create separate ML for offtopic discussions.

Read the archives. This has been proposed many times with the same
rejection already: With the OT discussions go the users who can . If
you want to read a forum of nothing but questions and no ful answers,
try Gentoo.

--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Atis wrote in Article
<945196e0706011009t2393ea63r993f5598237ea1b0@mail. gmail.com> posted to
gmane.linux.debian.user:

> Include offtopic@ in to, the same way as you include [OT] in subject.
> If you also answer on topic, just include both MLs.

Doesn't that entirely defeat the purpose of seperate mailing lists?
Wouldn't that also add an additional burden to repliers with no added
benefit? Doesn't this also ultimately shift the responsibility of
managing one's own mailbox onto someone other than the mailbox owner?
Couldn't this be more readily resolved for yourself with
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.user and your favorite
reasonably GNKSA-scored newsreader?

--
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): baloo@ursine.ca



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org