List moderator(s)

[John Kaufmann]

At lot of energy has been expended (unnecessarily?) dealing with two
interlocking list management issues:
  - how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
  - how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
answered).

A little reflection on the size of the list and the wealth of talent
wasted on these questions is enough to make one sick over the waste of
time.  Now Barbara Duprey has not only done an admirable and
comprehensive job of trying to get to answers that quash this waste [cf:
"Responding to unsubscribed posters"], but has also volunteered to take
the quest for answers off-list.  Also, Vera (VeLT) has offered a clue to
at least part of the problem ["Re: Fw: unsubscribe"], and again Barbara
followed up on the clue.

All of this begs an obvious question: When Barbara gets answers (for
which the list will be in her debt) how will she get corrections made?
Put another way: Who is/are the list moderator(s), and why is a list
moderator not active in these list management questions?  This may be a
dumb question, asked from the perspective of one who has not been around
this list for a long time - and if it's dumb, I apologize - but it seems
like an obvious question.  Anyone know?

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Paul-16]

> At lot of energy has been expended (unnecessarily?) dealing with two
> interlocking list management issues:
>  - how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>  - how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
> answered).
>
> A little reflection on the size of the list and the wealth of talent wasted
> on these questions is enough to make one sick over the waste of time.  Now
> Barbara Duprey has not only done an admirable and comprehensive job of
> trying to get to answers that quash this waste [cf: "Responding to
> unsubscribed posters"], but has also volunteered to take the quest for
> answers off-list.  Also, Vera (VeLT) has offered a clue to at least part of
> the problem ["Re: Fw: unsubscribe"], and again Barbara followed up on the
> clue.
>
> All of this begs an obvious question: When Barbara gets answers (for which
> the list will be in her debt) how will she get corrections made? Put another
> way: Who is/are the list moderator(s), and why is a list moderator not
> active in these list management questions?  This may be a dumb question,
> asked from the perspective of one who has not been around this list for a
> long time - and if it's dumb, I apologize - but it seems like an obvious
> question.  Anyone know?
>
> John
>
>

I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My silence
on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and it has all been
discussed before (repeatedly).

Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not bore
everyone else.

The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list will take
$$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.

/paul

--

Mike Ditka <http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mike_ditka.html>  -
"If God had wanted man to play soccer, he wouldn't have given us arms."

[Harold Fuchs-2]

Paul wrote:

>> At lot of energy has been expended (unnecessarily?) dealing with two
>> interlocking list management issues:
>>  - how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>>  - how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
>> answered).
>>
>> A little reflection on the size of the list and the wealth of talent wasted
>> on these questions is enough to make one sick over the waste of time.  Now
>> Barbara Duprey has not only done an admirable and comprehensive job of
>> trying to get to answers that quash this waste [cf: "Responding to
>> unsubscribed posters"], but has also volunteered to take the quest for
>> answers off-list.  Also, Vera (VeLT) has offered a clue to at least part of
>> the problem ["Re: Fw: unsubscribe"], and again Barbara followed up on the
>> clue.
>>
>> All of this begs an obvious question: When Barbara gets answers (for which
>> the list will be in her debt) how will she get corrections made? Put another
>> way: Who is/are the list moderator(s), and why is a list moderator not
>> active in these list management questions?  This may be a dumb question,
>> asked from the perspective of one who has not been around this list for a
>> long time - and if it's dumb, I apologize - but it seems like an obvious
>> question.  Anyone know?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>    
> I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My silence
> on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and it has all been
> discussed before (repeatedly).
>
> Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not bore
> everyone else.
>
> The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list will take
> $$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.
>
> /paul
>
>  

Paul,

Would you please answer this simple 2-part question: who (name & e-mail
address please) runs the ezmlm software that manages this list and who
(name & e-mail address please) is responsible for configuring that software?

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to users@...

[Barbara Duprey]

Paul wrote:

>> At lot of energy has been expended (unnecessarily?) dealing with two
>> interlocking list management issues:
>>  - how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>>  - how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
>> answered).
>>
>> A little reflection on the size of the list and the wealth of talent wasted
>> on these questions is enough to make one sick over the waste of time.  Now
>> Barbara Duprey has not only done an admirable and comprehensive job of
>> trying to get to answers that quash this waste [cf: "Responding to
>> unsubscribed posters"], but has also volunteered to take the quest for
>> answers off-list.  Also, Vera (VeLT) has offered a clue to at least part of
>> the problem ["Re: Fw: unsubscribe"], and again Barbara followed up on the
>> clue.
>>
>> All of this begs an obvious question: When Barbara gets answers (for which
>> the list will be in her debt) how will she get corrections made? Put another
>> way: Who is/are the list moderator(s), and why is a list moderator not
>> active in these list management questions?  This may be a dumb question,
>> asked from the perspective of one who has not been around this list for a
>> long time - and if it's dumb, I apologize - but it seems like an obvious
>> question.  Anyone know?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>    
> I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My silence
> on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and it has all been
> discussed before (repeatedly).
>
> Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not bore
> everyone else.
>
> The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list will take
> $$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.
>
> /paul

Hi, Paul, glad to hear from you.

The two approaches under discussion currently are
(1) Leaving the Reply-To address as the unsubscribed OP, but adding the
list (rather than replacing the OP's address with the list), and
advising list members to always use Reply All. This has indeed come up
lots of times, but nobody has given a definitive answer as to why it
can't/won't/shouldn't be done, at least as long as I've been on the list.
(2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a thread,
containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and some
information about how to follow the thread that way. I haven't ever seen
anything about that approach, have you?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Harold Fuchs-2]

Harold Fuchs wrote:

> Paul wrote:
>>> At lot of energy has been expended (unnecessarily?) dealing with two
>>> interlocking list management issues:
>>>  - how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>>>  - how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
>>> answered).
>>>
>>> A little reflection on the size of the list and the wealth of talent wasted
>>> on these questions is enough to make one sick over the waste of time.  Now
>>> Barbara Duprey has not only done an admirable and comprehensive job of
>>> trying to get to answers that quash this waste [cf: "Responding to
>>> unsubscribed posters"], but has also volunteered to take the quest for
>>> answers off-list.  Also, Vera (VeLT) has offered a clue to at least part of
>>> the problem ["Re: Fw: unsubscribe"], and again Barbara followed up on the
>>> clue.
>>>
>>> All of this begs an obvious question: When Barbara gets answers (for which
>>> the list will be in her debt) how will she get corrections made? Put another
>>> way: Who is/are the list moderator(s), and why is a list moderator not
>>> active in these list management questions?  This may be a dumb question,
>>> asked from the perspective of one who has not been around this list for a
>>> long time - and if it's dumb, I apologize - but it seems like an obvious
>>> question.  Anyone know?
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>> I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My silence
>> on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and it has all been
>> discussed before (repeatedly).
>>
>> Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not bore
>> everyone else.
>>
>> The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list will take
>> $$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.
>>
>> /paul
>>
>>  
> Paul,
>
> Would you please answer this simple 2-part question: who (name &
> e-mail address please) runs the ezmlm software that manages this list
> and who (name & e-mail address please) is responsible for configuring
> that software?
>

Paul has replied to me personally. Part of his message says:

------- begin quote ------
I've responded to you personally since I don't think it is my place to
splatter email addresses and names of people into the wild and onto a
user/discuss list (especially one in which feelings about mail list
functionality is running high).

To be honest I thought I did have a contact who could assist, but this
seems to not be the case. What I will do however is contact some people
on the community council and get a steer from them on how we should
proceed (I'll copy you in).
----- end quote ----

This is just to let you know that there is *not* a resounding silence
and that the matter *is* being pursued.

--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to users@...

[Barbara Duprey]

Harold Fuchs wrote:

> Harold Fuchs wrote:
>> Paul wrote:
>>>> At lot of energy has been expended (unnecessarily?) dealing with two
>>>> interlocking list management issues:
>>>>  - how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>>>>  - how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
>>>> answered).
>>>>
>>>> A little reflection on the size of the list and the wealth of
>>>> talent wasted
>>>> on these questions is enough to make one sick over the waste of
>>>> time.  Now
>>>> Barbara Duprey has not only done an admirable and comprehensive job of
>>>> trying to get to answers that quash this waste [cf: "Responding to
>>>> unsubscribed posters"], but has also volunteered to take the quest for
>>>> answers off-list.  Also, Vera (VeLT) has offered a clue to at least
>>>> part of
>>>> the problem ["Re: Fw: unsubscribe"], and again Barbara followed up
>>>> on the
>>>> clue.
>>>>
>>>> All of this begs an obvious question: When Barbara gets answers
>>>> (for which
>>>> the list will be in her debt) how will she get corrections made?
>>>> Put another
>>>> way: Who is/are the list moderator(s), and why is a list moderator not
>>>> active in these list management questions?  This may be a dumb
>>>> question,
>>>> asked from the perspective of one who has not been around this list
>>>> for a
>>>> long time - and if it's dumb, I apologize - but it seems like an
>>>> obvious
>>>> question.  Anyone know?
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    
>>> I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My
>>> silence
>>> on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and it has
>>> all been
>>> discussed before (repeatedly).
>>>
>>> Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not
>>> bore
>>> everyone else.
>>>
>>> The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list
>>> will take
>>> $$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.
>>>
>>> /paul
>>>
>>>  
>> Paul,
>>
>> Would you please answer this simple 2-part question: who (name &
>> e-mail address please) runs the ezmlm software that manages this list
>> and who (name & e-mail address please) is responsible for configuring
>> that software?
>>
> Paul has replied to me personally. Part of his message says:
>
> ------- begin quote ------
> I've responded to you personally since I don't think it is my place to
> splatter email addresses and names of people into the wild and onto a
> user/discuss list (especially one in which feelings about mail list
> functionality is running high).
>
> To be honest I thought I did have a contact who could assist, but this
> seems to not be the case. What I will do however is contact some
> people on the community council and get a steer from them on how we
> should proceed (I'll copy you in).
> ----- end quote ----
>
> This is just to let you know that there is *not* a resounding silence
> and that the matter *is* being pursued.

Wonderful! Thanks, Harold and Paul.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[NoOp-4]

On 11/04/2009 11:14 AM, Paul wrote:
...
And thanks for your work/efforts.

> I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My silence
> on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and it has all been
> discussed before (repeatedly).

It has indeed. Over & over & over again.
>
> Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not bore
> everyone else.
>
> The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list will take
> $$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.

Understood. However, can you please check if the:

Delivered-To: mailing list users@...
Delivered-To: moderator for users@...

in the headers can be reversed? In other words:

Delivered-To: moderator for users@...
Delivered-To: mailing list users@...

The problem with most nntp filters is that they will take the first
'Delivered-To:' and then ignore the next 'Delivered-To:'. Were the
'Delivered-To: moderator for users@...' header come first,
then there wouldn't be much of an issue w/nntp & gmain.org as the new
Thunderbird 3.x and SeaMonkey 2.x nntp readers (and others I reckon) can
now filter on headers in the same manner as they can with email.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[John Kaufmann]

Hi Paul,

In a message dated 2009.11.04 14:14 -0500, Paul wrote:

> I'm one of the list moderators for both users and discuss lists. My
> silence on these recent discussions is that there is nothing new and
> it has all been discussed before (repeatedly).

Isn't there a lesson there?  With respect, why are you a moderator?
Faced with evidence ("repeatedly") of disfunctional list behavior, why
would not a moderator be the /first/ person moved to act, rather than
sitting back in above-it-all silence?

A lot of valuable time is wasted with this stupidity - time taken from
people who are giving their time, and would prefer to give their time,
to support OpenOffice... which thus becomes the big loser in all of
this.  OO is too valuable, and life is way too short, to spend time
mired in stupidity.

That said, I just read what you sent to Harold off-list, and it is
gratifying to see that you do care about this issue.  That's the first
step to a fix.


> Search the archives for what moderators can and can't do - I'll not bore
> everyone else.

It would have been considerate to be a little more directed.  I took
your advice to search the archives, and found that a search of Subject
lines for "moderator" turned up 15,120 hits (out of 199,916 total
messages) - *the vast majority being posts for which the OP had a blank
Subject line, for which the list manager then inserted "[moderated]" as
the subject*: Obviously yet another bug in the system - another thing
that a moderator should attend to. [The irony is that instead of
attending to it, you seem rather inclined to send someone on a wild
goose chase exposing yet another problem.]

So instead I tried a message body search for "moderator", this time
getting 8,711 hits - but again many were for the string "moderated" or
"[moderated]": Again, a bug (for moderators?) to fix.  But in a few
pages of such hits, I turned up nothing useful.

So - third try - a search on posts from Paul <paul.m.nz@...>, in
the hope that you were referring to something you had written. That
turned up 2602 hits - fortunately, this time, none spurious, but also
none in the first few pages (120 posts) that seemed to be on point.

So, now that you have wasted my time with a vague reference [as, it must
be said, moderators have wasted the list's time by sitting by while
committed people try to figure out how to make a disfunctional system
work a little better], would you care to make your reference a bit more
specific?


> The central issue is that the collab software that runs the list will take
> $$$ to change. Without $$ and single approach for a change = no change.

By "collab" do you mean something specific, or is that an abbreviation
for "collaboration" software referring to the mailing list manager
(ezmlm)?  FWIW, I subscribe to other lists managed by ezmlm which do not
have this list's recurring wasters of time and bandwidth -
   (a) how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
   (b) how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
answered)
- so I doubt those problems are unresolvable, even "without $$".  OTOH,
if the bar to resolution is lack of a "single approach for a change",
why not start a thread to discuss the impediments?  If the moderators
cannot agree on a "single approach", maybe they at least owe it to the
list to tell us their considerations.  I'd bet we can come to a
resolution.  IAC, nothing would be lost by the effort, and we could gain
the elimination of much list clutter.  A productive thread like that
might replace hundreds of unproductive threads - and thousands of wasted
posts - in the coming year.

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[John Kaufmann]

Barbara,

In a message dated 2009.11.04 15:25 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote:

> The two approaches under discussion currently are
> (1) Leaving the Reply-To address as the unsubscribed OP, but adding the
> list (rather than replacing the OP's address with the list), and
> advising list members to always use Reply All. This has indeed come up
> lots of times, but nobody has given a definitive answer as to why it
> can't/won't/shouldn't be done, at least as long as I've been on the list.
> (2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a thread,
> containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and some
> information about how to follow the thread that way. I haven't ever seen
> anything about that approach, have you?

Of the two complementary questions in this thread -
   (a) how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
   (b) how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
answered)
- those "two approaches" only address the first question, and even in
that case may be an incomplete solution set.  For example, another
approach is the simplest and most common: require subscription to post.

I hope the moderators will favor the list with their thoughts on these
two recurring wastes of time, that we might see whether a proposed
solution to one might aggravate the other (or cause a new undesirable
consequence).  The premise of collaboration software, after all, is that
many heads are better than one.

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Larry Gusaas-4]

On 2009/11/04 10:25 PM  John Kaufmann wrote:
> By "collab" do you mean something specific, or is that an abbreviation
> for "collaboration" software referring to the mailing list manager
> (ezmlm)?  
Collab is short for CollabNet. On the openoffice.org website, at the
bottom right of every page is an image saying "Powered by CollabNet",
and at the bottom centre of every page is the following:

    CollabNet is a trademark of CollabNet, Inc., Sun, Sun Microsystems,
    the Sun logo, Java, Solaris, StarOffice are trademarks or registered
    trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other
    countries.

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[John Kaufmann]

In a message dated 2009.11.04 23:22 -0500, NoOp wrote:

> ... However, can you please check if the:
>
> Delivered-To: mailing list users@...
> Delivered-To: moderator for users@...
>
> in the headers can be reversed? ...
> The problem with most nntp filters is that they will take the first
> 'Delivered-To:' and then ignore the next 'Delivered-To:'. Were the
> 'Delivered-To: moderator for users@...' header come first,
> then there wouldn't be much of an issue w/nntp & gmain.org as the
> new Thunderbird 3.x and SeaMonkey 2.x nntp readers (and others I reckon)
> can now filter on headers in the same manner as they can with email.

Sorry to be dense, but if those mail/news clients filter nntp and mail
headers in the same manner (which seems only natural), then wouldn't the
nntp filter look at _every_ 'Delivered-To:'?

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[John Kaufmann]

In a message dated 2009.11.04 23:56 -0500, Larry Gusaas wrote:

>> By "collab" do you mean something specific, or is that an abbreviation
>> for "collaboration" software referring to the mailing list manager
>> (ezmlm)?  
>
> Collab is short for CollabNet. On the openoffice.org website, at the
> bottom right of every page is an image saying "Powered by CollabNet" ...

Thanks - but is ezmlm a CollabNet product? (I thought not.)

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Harold Fuchs-2]

2009/11/5 John Kaufmann <kaufmann@...>

> In a message dated 2009.11.04 23:56 -0500, Larry Gusaas wrote:
>
>  By "collab" do you mean something specific, or is that an abbreviation for
>>> "collaboration" software referring to the mailing list manager (ezmlm)?
>>>
>>
>> Collab is short for CollabNet. On the openoffice.org website, at the
>> bottom right of every page is an image saying "Powered by CollabNet" ...
>>
>
> Thanks - but is ezmlm a CollabNet product? (I thought not.)
>
> I think the point is that the ezmlm that controls this list is run on a

Collabnet server somewhere. However, it seems to me that, by definition, the
*list owner* should have sufficient privileges (a) to access that server and
(b) to change the ezmlm options relevant to his/her list. I can't imagine
that Collabnet would charge for that any more than your ISP would charge for
*you* to change your own hosted home page.


--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to users@...

[Barbara Duprey]

John Kaufmann wrote:

> Barbara,
>
> In a message dated 2009.11.04 15:25 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote:
>
>> The two approaches under discussion currently are
>> (1) Leaving the Reply-To address as the unsubscribed OP, but adding
>> the list (rather than replacing the OP's address with the list), and
>> advising list members to always use Reply All. This has indeed come
>> up lots of times, but nobody has given a definitive answer as to why
>> it can't/won't/shouldn't be done, at least as long as I've been on
>> the list.
>> (2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a
>> thread, containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and some
>> information about how to follow the thread that way. I haven't ever
>> seen anything about that approach, have you?
>
> Of the two complementary questions in this thread -
>   (a) how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>   (b) how to unsubscribe (for newbies who subscribed to get a question
> answered)
> - those "two approaches" only address the first question, and even in
> that case may be an incomplete solution set.  For example, another
> approach is the simplest and most common: require subscription to post.

As I've said before, the reason I don't favor the forced subscription is
that this list has an amount of traffic that can be a very unpleasant
surprise to somebody who is just "dropping by" to get the answer to a
specific question. Chances are that they'll see at least ten unrelated
posts for every one they care about, even if they unsubscribe after a
few days. And since they are unlikely to set up a filter to send the
traffic to a different mailbox, and may well not understand threading,
this is likely to be an unhappy experience as they go searching through
all the clutter to get to their normal mail and the responses to their
questions. (Many of the "please unsubscribe me" posters have called the
list traffic spam, and have threatened to sue us if we don't stop!) This
question has been discussed *may* times here, and there has generally
been a fairly even split. I think if we don't force people to subscribe
when they don't want any kind of long-term involvement, your second
issue goes away (at least as you've stated it here).
>
> I hope the moderators will favor the list with their thoughts on these
> two recurring wastes of time, that we might see whether a proposed
> solution to one might aggravate the other (or cause a new undesirable
> consequence).  The premise of collaboration software, after all, is
> that many heads are better than one.
>
> John

Well, Paul seems to be willing to help out, per his communication to
Harold. But they don't want to just rehash old discussions, which is
totally reasonable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Barbara Duprey]

John Kaufmann wrote:

> In a message dated 2009.11.04 23:22 -0500, NoOp wrote:
>
>> ... However, can you please check if the:
>>
>> Delivered-To: mailing list users@...
>> Delivered-To: moderator for users@...
>>
>> in the headers can be reversed? ...
>> The problem with most nntp filters is that they will take the first
>> 'Delivered-To:' and then ignore the next 'Delivered-To:'. Were the
>> 'Delivered-To: moderator for users@...' header come first,
>> then there wouldn't be much of an issue w/nntp & gmain.org as the
>> new Thunderbird 3.x and SeaMonkey 2.x nntp readers (and others I reckon)
>> can now filter on headers in the same manner as they can with email.
>
> Sorry to be dense, but if those mail/news clients filter nntp and mail
> headers in the same manner (which seems only natural), then wouldn't
> the nntp filter look at _every_ 'Delivered-To:'?
>
> John

You'd think they would, and I'd think they would -- but they don't!
Apparently Thunderbird, which handles both e-mail and newsgroups, is in
the process of establishing such a consistency, but it must be harder
than it looks from the outside.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[John Kaufmann]

In a message dated 2009.11.05 08:49 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote:

>>> The two approaches under discussion currently are
>>> (1) ... always use Reply All ...
>>> (2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a
>>> thread, containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and some
>>> information about how to follow the thread that way. ...
>>
>> Of the two complementary questions in this thread -
>>   (a) how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>>   (b) how to unsubscribe ...
>> - those "two approaches" only address the first question, and even in
>> that case may be an incomplete solution set.  For example, another
>> approach is the simplest and most common: require subscription to post.
>
> As I've said before, the reason I don't favor the forced subscription is
> that this list has an amount of traffic that can be a very unpleasant
> surprise to somebody who is just "dropping by" to get the answer to a
> specific question. ...

I'm not (yet, at least) advocating subscribe-to-post (even if it works
elsewhere and would improve the list's signal to noise ratio).  I am
advocating that all options be on the table - that nothing be a priori
excluded - in view of the waste this has become.  I used that most
obvious example as a simple way to say the proposed solution set was
incomplete and that it would be unwise, before hearing from the
moderators, to offer them a pre-packaged subset of choices. [A negative
example: Having seen the damage that a Reply-to-All requirement can do
to a list, I have my own reservations about that, but it's premature to
make that case.]


>> I hope the moderators will favor the list with their thoughts on these
>> two recurring wastes of time, that we might see whether a proposed
>> solution to one might aggravate the other (or cause a new undesirable
>> consequence).  The premise of collaboration software, after all, is
>> that many heads are better than one.
>
> Well, Paul seems to be willing to help out, per his communication to
> Harold. But they don't want to just rehash old discussions, which is
> totally reasonable.

Of course. We already spend too much time rehashing this old issue.  The
point is to become serious enough to resolve it.  Paul mentioned that
the lack of a "single approach" impedes a solution; we need more
substance to see what that means.  This is not an intractable problem,
and failure to resolve it has caused tremendous waste.

John

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Barbara Duprey]

John Kaufmann wrote:

> In a message dated 2009.11.05 08:49 -0500, Barbara Duprey wrote:
>
>>>> The two approaches under discussion currently are
>>>> (1) ... always use Reply All ...
>>>> (2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a
>>>> thread, containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and
>>>> some information about how to follow the thread that way. ...
>>>
>>> Of the two complementary questions in this thread -
>>>   (a) how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
>>>   (b) how to unsubscribe ...
>>> - those "two approaches" only address the first question, and even
>>> in that case may be an incomplete solution set.  For example,
>>> another approach is the simplest and most common: require
>>> subscription to post.
>>
>> As I've said before, the reason I don't favor the forced subscription
>> is that this list has an amount of traffic that can be a very
>> unpleasant surprise to somebody who is just "dropping by" to get the
>> answer to a specific question. ...
>
> I'm not (yet, at least) advocating subscribe-to-post (even if it works
> elsewhere and would improve the list's signal to noise ratio).  I am
> advocating that all options be on the table - that nothing be a priori
> excluded - in view of the waste this has become.  I used that most
> obvious example as a simple way to say the proposed solution set was
> incomplete and that it would be unwise, before hearing from the
> moderators, to offer them a pre-packaged subset of choices. [A
> negative example: Having seen the damage that a Reply-to-All
> requirement can do to a list, I have my own reservations about that,
> but it's premature to make that case.]

I completely agree -- it just sounded to me as if you were indeed
advocating that as the only viable alternative. Sorry I misunderstood.
And I'm sure that Harold and I, at least, are curious about those
"reservations" you have -- I don't think it's premature at all to
discuss them.

>
>
>>> I hope the moderators will favor the list with their thoughts on
>>> these two recurring wastes of time, that we might see whether a
>>> proposed solution to one might aggravate the other (or cause a new
>>> undesirable consequence).  The premise of collaboration software,
>>> after all, is that many heads are better than one.
>>
>> Well, Paul seems to be willing to help out, per his communication to
>> Harold. But they don't want to just rehash old discussions, which is
>> totally reasonable.
>
> Of course. We already spend too much time rehashing this old issue.  
> The point is to become serious enough to resolve it.  Paul mentioned
> that the lack of a "single approach" impedes a solution; we need more
> substance to see what that means.  This is not an intractable problem,
> and failure to resolve it has caused tremendous waste.
>
> John

Again, I agree completely.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Roy-5]

>>>> The two approaches under discussion currently are
>>>> (1) ... always use Reply All ...
>>>> (2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a
>>>> thread, containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and
>>>> some information about how to follow the thread that way. ...
>>>
<SNIP>

1. Unsubscribed posters are evidently using a newsgroup to post a question.
2. Messages on this mailing list evidently go to that newsgroup.
3. If an unsubscribed poster wants an answer to that question, evidently
FOLLOWING that newsgroup will give that poster the answer:
        A. Without being subscribed to the list.
        B. Without list-members having to:
                1. Remember to forward.
                2. Remember to CC:
                3. Remember to BCC:
                4. Remember to reply to all.

All the poster has to do is bookmark his/her question in his/her browser
and like MAGIC, every answer is ATTACHED to it.


>>> Of the two complementary questions in this thread -
>>>   (a) how to get answers to questions from unsubscribed posters; and
<SNIP>

Ask it on the list. If they're really interested in an answer, they'll
read it.
>>>   (b) how to unsubscribe ...
<SNIP>

Put the unsubscribe address in the body of an email. For various
reasons, the link after the sig marks don't always show up. As for the
ones who say they tried unsubscribing and it didn't work, maybe they
should verify that the email address the list is sent to is the same one
they are trying to unsubscribe. All too often, people have consolidated
several email addresses to be forwarded by another. Unless they know the
address they subscribed with and unsubscribe from that address, all
efforts to help are futile.

If I seem a little coarse and uncaring, it might have something to do
with the fact that there are more posts about how to, how not to
communicate with non-list members than there are about OpenOffice.org.
These same topics are discussed ad-nauseum, at least once a month. Sorry
to be so crude, but them's the facts.


Roy


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Larry Gusaas-4]

On 2009/11/05 9:12 PM  Roy wrote:

>>>>> The two approaches under discussion currently are
>>>>> (1) ... always use Reply All ...
>>>>> (2) Providing a message to the unsubscribed OP who is starting a
>>>>> thread, containing a link to the OP's message in the archive and
>>>>> some information about how to follow the thread that way. ...
>>>>>          
> <SNIP>
>
> 1. Unsubscribed posters are evidently using a newsgroup to post a question.
>  

Wrong. They are sending their questions to users@.... Because
this list allows unsubscribed posters to post messages they are posted
to the list. Their posts have the header "Delivered To: moderator for
users@..."

The posts from those of us who post through gmane have the header
"X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/"

> 2. Messages on this mailing list evidently go to that newsgroup.
>  

All messages to the list go to the gmane newsgroup
"gmane.comp.openoffice.questions". I use a newsreader (Thunderbird) to
post and read messages in this list.

> 3. If an unsubscribed poster wants an answer to that question, evidently
> FOLLOWING that newsgroup will give that poster the answer:
>  

Except they did not post their message through the newsgroup. They know
nothing about gmane.

> A. Without being subscribed to the list.
> B. Without list-members having to:
> 1. Remember to forward.
> 2. Remember to CC:
> 3. Remember to BCC:
> 4. Remember to reply to all.
>
> All the poster has to do is bookmark his/her question in his/her browser
> and like MAGIC, every answer is ATTACHED to it.
>  

How can they do this when they know nothing about gmane? Do you know
anything about posting to this  list through gmane?

--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Tamblyne]

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:12:02 -0500, Roy <mlist@...> wrote:

<snip>  

> If I seem a little coarse and uncaring,

I don't know about "coarse and uncaring" but you do seem to make a lot
of assumptions -- invalid ones, IMHO -- about how people are accessing
the mailing list and what their level of expertise is.  

> it might have something to do
> with the fact that there are more posts about how to, how not to
> communicate with non-list members than there are about OpenOffice.org.
> These same topics are discussed ad-nauseum, at least once a month. Sorry
> to be so crude, but them's the facts.

It was this way when I was active in the project five (six?) years
ago, and nothing's changed since then.  The people who are frustrated
are making the same complaints and suggestions, and the moderators
still have their hands tied.  They're moderators -- they don't manage
CollabNet.  

Kudos, though, to Paul for trying.  I notice he got at least one
"slamming" after "outing" himself.  Might be why the moderators tend
not to do that.  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...