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

[Kubilay Kocak]

On 21/12/2013 1:24 AM, John Marino wrote:
> 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.

Delivery matters, more than people think, or recognize.

corrected -> developed, enlightened, tutored, polished
policing -> maintaining high quality

It *is* possible to set assertive, clear expectations and have a
positive interaction that sets the tone for the rest of a users experience.

> 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

Seek and you shall find. Confirmation bias perhaps. :)