[Foundation-l] Improving foundation-l

[Ryan Lomonaco]

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 at 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.

-- 
[[User:Ral315]]