This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: I guess I'm giving up on the "experiment"


At 03:26 PM 5/16/2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>Ok, here you go, trying to increase my number of posts to sources.redhat.com
>mailing list.  I'm onto your game.  :-)


I can't fool you!


>On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:47:17PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> >How important is it that we reduce the traffic on the list?  Is it just
> >an annoyance to those of us that monitor it or is it an issue for Red
> >Hat as well?
>
>It's an issue for sources.redhat.com.  Cygwin mailing list traffic was
>actually having an effect on email throughput.


Hopefully not to the extent that they considered shutting us down...


>IMO, it's also an issue in a larger sense in teaching people to fish
>rather than giving them a fish (to use a hackneyed cliche).  I think
>that people are relying on the mailing list as an alternative to
>actually using their brains.  I believe that this is due to the fact
>that we are all so remarkably responsive.


Yes, I think there is some truth in this.



>So, in retrospect, I wish I hadn't responded to the guy with maain()
>problems.


Don't beat yourself up about it.  I couldn't resist either, though I did it
off-line.  This is the kind of thing I *need* to resist responding to though.


> >Was the point of the experiment to measure how many newbies and the
> >like would find answers on their own if need-be or was it to measure
> >how many folks could be coaxed into not responding to email in an
> >attempt to mitigate duplicate replies to the same question?  Or was
> >there another cycle we were trying to break?  I guess I'm just not
> >quite sure what the overall goal of the experiment was, so its hard for
> >me to offer an opinion on whether its end is premature.  Regardless, I
> >was happy to participate, considering that the ultimate goal was to
> >make the list better for all (I think ;-) )!
>
>Hopefully my above response answers these questions.
>
>So, I still plain on being very selective in my responses.  I won't
>be able to resist people complaining about the "bug" of completely
>redesigned mount output but I will try to resist answering the
>"Why can't I compile my program" questions.
>
>I would like to eventually investigate some sort of auto-FAQ system.
>Or maybe just designating spear catchers for certain classes of
>questions.
>
>For instance, does anyone want to volunteer to answer the obvious
>setup.exe questions, like "gcc says libuser32.a not found"?  If we all
>knew that someone was going to answer a specific category of question
>then we wouldn't have to worry about responding ourselves unless we
>didn't see an answer for a couple of days.



Hm, that's an interesting idea.  I wonder if we could come up with other
categories too.  Most of these responses would probably just redirect the
petitioner to the FAQ but it would be better to have 1 such response rather
than 2, 3 or more.  

I'd volunteer for the setup questions but I have to admit that I don't 
use it.  I know, boo-hiss.  Just a personal choice at this point.  No 
reflection on the facility itself.  If no one else volunteers though, I'm 
willing to field the questions to the best of my ability.


Larry Hall                              lhall@rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]