Multiple Lists: Another View

[Dan Shafer]

It will come as no surprise to those who know me that I find myself not 
quite 100% in favor of the new move to splinter our community into 
multiple special-interest lists. I've seen this happen before and 
although it dramatically increases efficiency, it dramatically 
decreases community cohesion and camaraderie.

I'm not opposed to *some* fragmentation along fairly broad lines. But I 
think creating special lists to discuss SQL or text processing or 
animation would be a mistake.

One of the problems is that new people often have trouble figuring out 
which list to ask a question. As a result, they either go away 
bewildered and lost (and become non-users) or they cross-post to every 
list they think might  be able to help (and thereby incur the wrath of 
those who see the separation of lists for efficiency as a Good Thing). 
I particularly don't like the idea of creating lists of newbies and 
"experienced users." Exactly when does one cross that line? And how 
many experienced users will end up, in the long run, being willing to 
monitor the newbie list where the same question will inevitably be 
raised multiple times?

This community is not yet so large -- and this list is not yet so busy 
-- that we can't stay together on one list, in my view. I'm as busy as 
anyone out there, I suspect, and I find time to monitor traffic and be 
fairly active.

If there *is* a need for some segmentation, we can get part way there 
by adopting some subject-line conventions so that the first N 
characters of a post tell you what the general subject is, making it 
perhaps easier and more efficient to monitor the traffic without 
further sub-dividing our already tiny family.

FWIW.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dan Shafer, Revolutionary
Author of  "Revolution: Software at the Speed of Thought"
http://www.revolutionpros.com for more info
Available at Runtime Revolution Store (http://www.runrev.com/RevPress)