On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints which all lists share.

I agree. But that page was created by one of this list's moderators, so it's not quite so simple as just ignoring it. So how do others feel? Do the current list moderators agree with the conclusion reached by you and me? Or is there further discussion that needs to occur first?

wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

The entire page is founded on unsubstantiated and generic complaints which all lists share. I'm on moderated lists which are completely horrible. And I'm on unmoderated lists which are absolutely excellent.

Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in one of my articles that when he ran his own discussion group he allowed people to talk themselves out. There will always be people who unsubscribe, there will always be new subscribers. There is no fix which will address that issue.

There will always be people complaining that something is broken, there will always be people saying nothing is broken.

Let's see some actual numbers, actual citations and actual research that others can test, prod, and comprehend. The page right now has nothing like a scientific approach to even a description of the problem let alone trying to find any "solution".

What a novel idea! ;-)

Letting people talk themselves out works best hand-in-hand with "Don't feed the trolls." A troll in this context is whoever you subjectively fell is talking too much.

Ec

If there's a legitimate agreement as to what should be done to improve the list, I'd be more than happy to try it out, and I think Austin would be willing to as well. I don't see any agreement on what to do at the moment.

There are four potential problems cited on that page. The first three were added by Austin when he started the page, based on some of the complaints that we've heard. The last was added by someone else. Looking at them:

Overall volume is too high for many to keep up; people simply give up and

unsubscribe, removing their voice from the debate.

I'm not sure this is a valid point. From January through September 2009, we've averaged 781 posts per month - the lowest yearly average since 2005. (We averaged 1250 posts a month in 2006, 845 per month in 2007, and 960 per month in 2008). If there is a complaint, perhaps it goes to the content of the posts, not the number itself.

A minority of posters dominate the discussion, giving disproportionate

attention to their points of view (and substantially increasing traffic).

The two most prolific posters through the first nine months of 2009 combined for 970 posts (13.8% of total list traffic). The top ten posters combined for 2,644 posts (37.6% of traffic). I'm open to suggestions as to what to do about this; however, I'm not sure a flat limit is a good idea, because what might be considered "too many posts" varies wildly depending on what's going on in Wikimedia.

For example, in January 2009, there was a lot of traffic for a variety of reasons, most notably discussion over the then-proposed transition to Creative Commons, and the fundraiser. In that month, nine posters sent at least 30 messages (the proposed maximum on Meta). Most notably, Mike Godwin made 35 posts in January - more than he has throughout the rest of the year combined - because the conversations involved his expertise. In April 2009, meanwhile, the top poster only had 22 posts.

I will suggest, as an aside, that posters in general focus on quality, not quantity. There is absolutely no need to reply to every other e-mail in a conversation.

Another minority argues for the sake of arguing, again inflating the overall

volume of the list while contributing little to the debate.

It's tough to judge when someone is "arguing for the sake or arguing", and when someone has a legitimate concern. Just because a poster is critical (even if they're critical most of the time) doesn't mean that their posts aren't valid. That said, maybe a "beating a dead horse" guideline would be worth considering - when a lone voice continues to argue a point that everyone else agrees is not valid, then the discussion should be ended.

The mailing list's purpose is clouded by allowing far too much off-topic

discussion. Foundation-l is for discussion of topics directly related to the Foundation - not anything you may wish other people are interested in.

I'll be honest - I don't see that much "off-topic" discussion, looking through recent conversations. There are cases where the conversation has little to do with the original post, or where the poster may not be trying to contribute positively to the discussion, but for the most part, they do relate to Wikimedia.

If, however, discussion does go off-topic, I would suggest that everyone, as list members, consider doing the following:

- Not replying to off-topic discussion. If one person strays off-topic and no one else does, it's not nearly as big of a deal. - If discussion continues to go off-topic, make an on-topic post, or make a friendly note that the discussion seems to be going off-topic. - If you see a discussion that's straying off-topic, send a direct e-mail to either Austin or myself. Honestly, sometimes I don't notice whether a conversation's going off-topic right away, and letting us know that it is never hurts.

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:05 PM, wjhonson@aol.com wrote:

Jimmy Wales himself has stated, and I've quoted him in one of my articles that when he ran his own discussion group he allowed people to talk themselves out. There will always be people who unsubscribe, there will always be new subscribers. There is no fix which will address that issue.

In general, my opinion has been similar.

There will always be people complaining that something is broken, there will always be people saying nothing is broken.

True. That said, this should not be taken to mean that there may not be legitimate issues that could potentially be made better.

2009/10/1 Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com:

If I've noticed nothing else in the last 4 years, it's that Wikimedians have very short attention spans when it comes to these sorts of things. We all talk about our bright and shiny ideal future and throw around a few ideas. Someone starts a page (or an entire wiki) to discussing the issue. People edit briefly and furiously, then stop caring.

I've noticed that, but each time the same issue comes up we seem to go slightly further until we eventually reach a conclusion and take action. It can take years to get there, though.