birgitte_sb at yahoo.com
Sun Dec 31 02:55:18 UTC 2006
--- Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Birgitte SB wrote:
> >Perhaps we would be better to post a link here:
> >With a very short english message: "Last week's
> >summary of foundation-l is now available. Please
> >I don't like just posting "sensitive" messages
> >it is hard to tell what any one wiki will find
> >sensitive. Not all wiki's are complaining about
> >sitenotice. Although the LSS is not perfect I
> >it is the best option for "pushing" information.
> The Foundation list summary looks good.
> The success of a communications strategy depends not
> only on the
> information being posted, but on people taking the
> time and
> responsibility to read it. One of the reasons for
> this reading failure
> is the sheer volume of messages that are issued.
> So, at least rating
> the significance of the messages would be important.
> A Board statement
> about a newly adopted policy would have a very high
> rating. Yet another
> person's complaint about being blocked would have a
> very low one.
> Putting numerical ratings on each message would help
> those with limited
> time to choose which ones to read first.
> If the information has been there and easily
> accessible for a reasonable
> time there is no valid excuse for not being
I am not sure rating is necessary. The key messages
worth reading in a thread have links from the summary
to their archived location. I would think everyone
should have time to read the basic summary and if a
particular thread is something they care about the
should read the message(s) that are linked to. And if
they REALLY care they can read through that section of
the archive completely. Of course the archived
messages is always in english which is a problem for
those reading translations of the summary. But that
would still be a problem even if they were rated.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
More information about the foundation-l