::scr Mostly meta (was Re: Welcome To "scr"!)

[Simon Wistow]

[batch reply]

Richard> I didn't realise that language-dev was invite only though I did
Richard> imagine it would be so tech-bent as to be self-selecting. 
Hmmm.

Sorry, that was badly phrased. language-dev isn't invite only but it is
strictly on topic.


Richard> I scanned the start as: you'll answer any question, so answer
this.
Richard> An answer.  Then gets thrown in "I don't know how you freaks
can learn
Richard> that stuff" then *boom*, one seriously on-topic thread.

True. See below.

Paul> What *is* the problem? Is it that (void) goes off-topic? Is it
really
Paul> that much of a problem? We've all posted to off-topic threads.
(Even
Paul> Richard...)

True. See below.

Richard> a) What is the itch we're scratching here?
Richard> Clearly defining this is the hard work, and once we can define
a set
Richard> of problems to address we can throw solutions at them and get a
feel
Richard> for what seems to work.  Gah, me looking for a process, kill me
now :)

My point is this.

(void) once had a topic but now it's kind of a social list for people
who think that's a pretty cool topic. I like (void). I actually missed
it when I was travelling, I liek the friends I've met through, I enjoy
the conversations. More specifically I also enjoy the off-topic
conversations. I like the fact that threads like Batch can meander on
and off topic. But I don't think we should have to be overjoyed when it
finally gets back on topic. 

We were talking on Thursday about the fact that we wanted (void) to be a
more technically bent mailing list. 

I don't think this is right. Other people like (void) how it is.
Personally I think that's there's room for both types of mailing list
and I don't think it's right that we wade into (void) and start
manipulating the topic. YMMV.

So why not have another list? We have the technology, the boxen, the
bandwith. 

Richard> What could work is an announcement that it's starting, with
plenty of
Richard> empasis about it being purely on-topic.  If it can be made to
sound
Richard> different enough that people don't think that it's dissing
their
Richard> specific brainchildren directly that would be good too.

Hmm. Ok. I'd still like to thrash this topic out a bit more until we
come to a consensus (which I think we are sort of heading towards).

Dave> Mmmm.  Looking at 6.1 and 6.2 I'm not sure where this list would
be, or
Dave> indeed whether there is any point to it.  Ho-hum.  Actually, I'm
quite
Dave> surprised Simon remembered to create it, cos he was *very* drunk
on
Dave> Thursday :-)

I wasn't *that* drunk. Certainly not as drunk as some. The room wasn't
even spinning :) I was very very tired though :(



-- 
simon wistow            wireless systems coder
   it ain't pretty being easy