If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing

[John Marino]

On 12/20/2013 15:09, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> I appreciate the distinction, and I agree with your premises. Setting a
> high standard is not in question.

Thanks.

> If your aim however, is to change or influence others, and you'll grant
> that not everyone can know all there is to know about the values and
> behaviours we espouse in advance, then a reply guiding (read: leading)
> those individuals in the right direction would likely prove more
> effective than what was perhaps just a symptom of frustration.

At the beginning of the thread, I used the gcc developer list as an
actual example.  If anyone posst an inappropriate topic to the list, it
may get answered, but it will always get a "this is not appropriate for
this list, please don't do it again, use the XXXX list for this next
time."  I can imagine it's a slight put-off for brand new users but it
is effective.  People make a mistake once, and after that they do the
right thing.  Since they are publicly corrected, you can imagine they
educate dozens of people *before* they can make the same mistake.

So I'm talking about policing the list consistently.

> If you don't feel up to taking on that role, then maybe unsubscribing is
> the way to go, though I hope its not as you have a lot of value to add.

I had to try, but I suspected this thread would go the way of NetBSD
(Much discussion, zero net effect) and so far it has.  I expect this
topic to die down soon and I'll unsubscribe around new years eve, since
two weeks seems to be the ports grace period. :)

John