Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of ap-cocoon-dev@m.gmane.org
 designates 80.91.229.2 as permitted sender)
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
From: Jorg Heymans <jh@domek.be>
Subject: Re: [RT] seven good reasons to close down users@cocoon.apache.org
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 11:06:17 +0200
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <dhtglr$pm$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <93737231e39b88f914e63908d8b7b1bf@apache.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
In-Reply-To: <93737231e39b88f914e63908d8b7b1bf@apache.org>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>


Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> 
> I think I have a few good reasons for this:
> 
> One: The line between cocoon users and developers is fairly thin, it is
> not as in Open Office for example, where most users do not even know
> what the C language is. Our users are more and more competent software
> developers who would often have interesting things to say if they were
> around, and might like this place more if they felt more involved.
> Cocoon has been finding its niche as a tool for serious application
> developers, as opposed to a press-button publishing tool, which it has
> never been and will never be.
> 
> Two: my guess is that many dev@ subscribers could answer some users@
> questions very quickly, but sometimes we don't bother looking at the
> list, and some of us are probably not even subscribed there. It's a
> waste of energy, and has probably caused otherwise competent people to
> go away after not getting good enough answers.
> 
> Three: dev@ subscribers tend to use good messages subjects and [TOPIC
> MARKERS] in subject lines to make the lists easy to filter, visually or
> automatically. So I'm not worried about the increased traffic, we'll
> find a way to make it sortable by teaching our community about good
> subject lines or defining a few more [markers].  Okay, this is not
> really a *reason*, but it's needed for my argumentation ;-D
> 
> Four: for many subjects one does not know on which list to post, again a
> waste of energy as threads regulary bounce between the lists. We
> developers tend to discuss between ourselves things that are of general
> interest, without bothering to move to users@ as it's not "our home".
> 
> Five: having two lists, one for Highly Qualified Meritocratic Core
> Developers and another for Mere Users does not sound like the openness
> and flat structure that we're advocating (I'm being a bit provocative
> here, on purpose ;-)
> 
> Six; the closing down of the docs@ list has only been positive, by
> defragmenting the community w.r.t docs and allowing all developers to be
> informed of what's happening with the [docs] (hint: note the good use of
> the [marker]).
> 
> Seven: Having a single point of discussion will help us know our users
> better, this alone is worth its weight in bytes.
> 

You are trying to remedy the fact that many developers (not all of them)
don't look at user@. I say those developers need to change their
view/attitude towards user@ and realize that replying to a "HELP: No
pipeline matched blabla !!!" post benefits cocoon as much as (for
example) fleshing out the next gen container architecture.

Splitting up mailinglists works for other OS projects because either
1) they have a self sustaining user list with a lot of advanced users
willing to help out eg Spring forums
2) the developers *actively* help out on every post eg maven-users

A rough count shows that of the 200 threads in september, about 35 were
1-post threads ie remained unanswered.


Let's discuss this further at the Hackathon, I need to catch my train :-)


Jorg