[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: IGLU@eGroups (was: is there newsgroup for linux-il ?)




Are we discussing a mid-flight change of the whole modus operandi of a
fairly active mailing list that will require a significant adjustment
on the part of every subscriber? What bothers me is not so much a list
vs. newsgroup choice (I use GNUS for both news and mail, so the
linux-il folder looks no different to me than comp.os.linux.announce),
but what I perceive (maybe erroneously) as a drive towards a more
interactive, real-time environments, such as IRC, chat rooms,
etc. Frankly, I don't really know where eGroups are in this zoo, I
would just like to make a few general comments.

Think about those who work in organizations that do not - and will not
- allow the employees to use IRC or chat or ICQ or anything like that.
Also consider that email is the least intrusive means of communication
- it can be ignored until one has the time to read it and decide
whether to reply to it.  Newsgroups are in the same category, but IRC,
real-time chat, or phone for that matter are not. If a significant
share of the activity moves to those channels some of us will face a
serious problem.

Now, a chat room may be useful. A question is asked, and someone knows
the answer, and invites the other guy to chat, taking the load off the
list/group bandwidth. Disadvantages: no one else will see the answer,
and it won't be archived, presumably. Alternatives: I can't believe
the same cannot be achieved by personal email.

It certainly sounds nice to have a variety of services in a common
framework. This is a good argument indeed. I stress again that I would
like to keep the main activity in the form of email and/or news
postings, since I won't be able to keep up with anything more
intrusive. Besides, what will happen when some poor sod who currently
has a problem reading the unsubscribe instructions in the trailer
gets stuck with any of a dozen even less familiar services? Will I get
an email informing me about it?

My other concern stems from the don't-fix-what-ain't-broken principle.
There must be a *really* good reason for changing things. Let's see
what has been mentioned so far:

<Ira, note that I removed your email address from here! ;-)>

> * spam protected web archives

I state again that I don't see any spam problem related to linux-il.
Is there any evidence at all that email addresses are harvested from
the archives, or that spam messages appear because of linux-il? Ira,
you seem to be complaining the most, and it seems that you have no
problem setting a special email address to subscribe and post to
linux-il from.  Can you do that, wait for some reasonable period of
time (a fortnight?), and report the amount of spam you got at *that*
address? Maybe you already have some hard numbers? For the record, I
see no spam that I can trace to linux-il, almost 100% comes via TAU (I
think I mentioned that before).

> * choice of reading online, in Email, full digests or header digests

What don't we have? Header digests? Not a big deal, IMHO.

> * polls

Is it so difficult to implement on the web site?

> * chat room for online meetings

Covered above.

> * calendar of events, 

Not important either. I see nothing wrong with announcements on the
list - what's so difficult about saving the mail or looking up the
archive? How many events a month do we anticipate? Again, nothing the
minimal amount of discipline on the part of the site maintainer can't
handle (he can be emailed with the details - why do we need fancy
solutions?). I suppose a normal person keeps a schedule of his/her
own, and will consult that schedule rather than check various web
sites over and over again.

> other cool features too many to list here

Well, I don't know what you mean, but sounds like there are too many 
to make any single one critically important ;-). Let's hope the
majority of the members learn how to unsubscribe on their own ;-).

> * remote management can be delegated dynamicly to any group member

Is there a real need for that? The question carries no irony. Maybe
there is a serious problem here, and I just don't feel it as a
subscriber.

> * better return time of messages from the list (Listar shortened
> majordomo's response time from hours to minutes, Egroups takes
> usually only seconds)

It might be important to those with loads of spare seconds on their
hands. I cannot estimate how many of us do. I do agree it might be
important, but given that a follow-up isn't likely to be typed and
posted in less than a minute I don't think that a sub-minute list
software response is really critical. For really highly active lists
(I imagine there are a few in SV), where someone is likely to post a
follow-up within seconds, this might be important.

Please don't consider this as a vote against any change. I will
certainly welcome improvements. I just thought I had to raise some
issues that should be considered, and had not been raised before.

-- 
Oleg Goldshmidt | BLOOMBERG L.P. (BFM) | oleg@bfr.co.il
"... We work by wit, and not by witchcraft;
 And wit depends on dilatory time." - W. Shakespeare.

=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to linux-il-request@linux.org.il with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail linux-il-request@linux.org.il