August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
Anthony wrote:
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
And your point.
Are you claiming credit?
Or are you claiming to be the victim?
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
And your point.
Are you claiming credit?
Or are you claiming to be the victim?
The autopsy indicates that it was a suicide.
Presumably he feels that the way the list has been managed has contributed to its decline. I don't disagree in that regard. On the other hand, raw message counts can be misleading: are 200-message threads a good thing?
I support the changes, its cleaned up my inbox and made the discussions I'm seeing more worthy of attention. The list is running better than ever.
________________________________ From: Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 9:43:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How to kill a mailing list
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
And your point.
Are you claiming credit?
Or are you claiming to be the victim?
The autopsy indicates that it was a suicide.
Presumably he feels that the way the list has been managed has contributed to its decline. I don't disagree in that regard. On the other hand, raw message counts can be misleading: are 200-message threads a good thing? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
+1 to what Geoffrey said.
Steven Walling
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.plrd@yahoo.comwrote:
I support the changes, its cleaned up my inbox and made the discussions I'm seeing more worthy of attention. The list is running better than ever.
From: Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 9:43:22 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] How to kill a mailing list
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:32 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen < cimonavaro@gmail.com> wrote:
Anthony wrote:
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
And your point.
Are you claiming credit?
Or are you claiming to be the victim?
The autopsy indicates that it was a suicide.
Presumably he feels that the way the list has been managed has contributed to its decline. I don't disagree in that regard. On the other hand, raw message counts can be misleading: are 200-message threads a good thing? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 37-01--10 03:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
Does anyone know what the numbers are? Or perhaps this this email a demonstration?!
- -Mike
Mike.lifeguard wrote:
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ???
Does anyone know what the numbers are? Or perhaps this this email a demonstration?!
The number of messages per month. I thought this was obvious. The figure is at the top of each monthly archive, e.g., http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-February/
MZMcBride
I hardly think this is a "killed" list. If I've got my emails straight, the "soft limit" of 30 emails per month was implemented November 13th, 2009. Don't remember what happened in October... anyways. Declaring the list "dead" because the message count is dead is a major case of edit-count-itis.
Let's be honest, everyone knows that Foundation-l has a reputation and nicknames to go with it. Flame-l, hell-l, spam-l... to name some of the more polite ones. Myself, as someone who rarely writes anything to the list (This will make message 2? or 3? in the last 18 months) it was quite plain to see that the signal to noise ratio was.... ..was... how does one mathmatically represent 'useless'? From an average of 34 messages a day to an average of 7, I think the change is for the better.
Anyways, as with most mediums, there were a few extremely noisy people generating 90% of the mail volume. With the soft limit of 30 they must think twice about their messages. Not that they couldn't go over the limits. The mods said several times that the soft limit would just kick people into "auto-moderation" but if they had valid messages, they would still be approved.
I'm glad things are the way they are now, and I hope the mods continue their good work.
-Jon
Yes, but no need to delete endless repetitive spam from "Anthony" without bothering to read it.
Bottom line, serious discussions have moved elsewhere. Progress, I guess, discussions here never seemed to lead anywhere. Just round and round.
Fred Bauder
August 2009: 1030 September 2009: 791 October 2009: 326 November 2009: 513 December 2009: 234 January 2010: 207 February 2010: 213 March 2010: ??? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Bottom line, serious discussions have moved elsewhere. Progress, I guess, discussions here never seemed to lead anywhere. Just round and round.
Where have the discussions moved? I assume you're talking about a private list? Any possibility of having such a list which is read-only to the general community?
I don't think it's progress to take all the serious discussions out of the view of the community. If the general quality of the discussions has increased, that's great, but you agree that it'd be even better if you could increase the quality while also maintaining the openness, right?
I think Fred meant that rather than being on Foundation-l, they've moved to appropriate places on the various wikis. Correct me if I'm wrong, Fred. :)
pb
On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:14 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Bottom line, serious discussions have moved elsewhere. Progress, I guess, discussions here never seemed to lead anywhere. Just round and round.
Where have the discussions moved? I assume you're talking about a private list? Any possibility of having such a list which is read-only to the general community?
I don't think it's progress to take all the serious discussions out of the view of the community. If the general quality of the discussions has increased, that's great, but you agree that it'd be even better if you could increase the quality while also maintaining the openness, right? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
What I mean is that there are specialized forums both on and off wiki. We used to discuss individual users and their behavior here. Now that would be on a Noticeboard or a request for arbitration, and yes on a private list. This list just doesn't handle everything anymore.
Fred
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Bottom line, serious discussions have moved elsewhere. Progress, I guess, discussions here never seemed to lead anywhere. Just round and round.
Where have the discussions moved? I assume you're talking about a private list? Any possibility of having such a list which is read-only to the general community?
I don't think it's progress to take all the serious discussions out of the view of the community. If the general quality of the discussions has increased, that's great, but you agree that it'd be even better if you could increase the quality while also maintaining the openness, right? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org