On Sat, 10 Sep 2005, Chris Mauritz wrote:
> Dominik Skadanowski wrote:
>
> > In my opinion the best way would be make few more detailed lists. Ex.:
> > security@xxxxxxxxxx hardware@xxxxxxxxxx etc.
>
> That NEVER works. "Naughty" folks are going to want to get their say. If
> they feel like they are being marginalised by being "forced" onto a lesser
> traffic list, they'll usually just post to the main list anyway.
I agree with that.
> Rather than have anyone waste their time moderating the list, my
> suggestion (again) is that people who are annoyed by the volume or
> content of posts simply use a filter on their mail client. I generally
> use Thunderbird these days and it literally took no more than a couple
> of minutes to set up the filtering. It's been quite effective for me.
Moderation doesn't have to be a time-wasting effort for the moderator. In
fact, I think that as soon as we have a moderator assigned (and a short
policy to how it will work) most of the long threads could be ended by a
simple message of the moderator. (If necessary followed by moderation of
the involved parties)
Filtering on the other hand requires everyone to take action, and
especially for those we want to keep on the list and are more
vulnerable to long off-topic discussions (new users) it is the most
annoying and the most difficult to filter the noise out.
To me, if there's one list that should be (softly) moderated (as explained
earlier) than it should be the general CentOS list. To protect the silent
majority from inter-personal attacks that have little to add to the list.
Kind regards,
-- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ --
[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
