New Digest Format / List Gnome
New Digest Format / List Gnome
- Subject: New Digest Format / List Gnome
- From: Alexander Schrieken <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 01:26:52 +0100
Hi,
In response to the new format of the AppleScript List (Digest)
Nigel Garvey wrote:
>
I've just received the first digest from the new lists
>
server.
>
>
1) The numbering has gone back to Volume 1, Number 1.
>
>
2) There are now too many details of posters, such as their
>
Reply-to addresses, their organisations, and the lists of
>
everyone to whom they sent their posts.
>
>
The Date, From, and Subject lines are perfectly adequate in
>
the texts of digests. The rest is just clutter. In fact I'd
>
also be quite happy without the Message numbers. (And so
>
would the script I use to reply to messages!)
Our List Gnome, Chuq, reacted to these comments. His reply as
well as the rebound it sparked from Nigel are shown below:
>
>1)...
>
>
yes.
>
>
> Have you ever read 'The Dancing Wu Li Masters' by Gary
>
> Zukav? Every section in it is either Chapter 1 or Part 1.
>
>
>2)...
>
>
again, yes. most people consider that a feature. On the old
>
system, I constantly got requests why we didn't include more
>
info. Basic reality -- every change makes someone happy, and
>
someone else unhappy. There are very few 100% solutions.
>
>
> The number of times I've seen or heard that used in defence
>
> of a bad idea.
>
>
>
> Well, could you at least try to arrange these details in a
>
> consistent order, preferably:
>
>
>
> Date: From: Subject:
This exchange, in turn, led to another posting by Mr. Anonymous:
>
Don't bother with this Chuq person. I've dealt with him
>
before. For example, I tried to get him to name the digest
>
so that it would fit within 31 characters, and sort
>
naturally by filename. Useful for archiving? Oh no, that
>
idea was stupid. He couldn't see any reason why everybody
>
shouldn't just manually rename every file.
>
>
He's sure he's right about everything, and "scr*w you if you
>
don't like it."
>
>
I don't think he's really a Mac guy. Why he's in charge I
>
have no idea.
Of course this last posting could not go unanswered. Several
people (rightly) stood up for Chuq. Underneath is (part of) his
own defense:
>
Noo, bother with Chuq. That's why he's there.
>
>
I suggest you don't assume that just because you demand
>
something that I'll do it. I'm happy to listen, but when
>
people insist that because they want something it should be
>
forced on everyone, I tend to be cautious. I did try to
>
explain to this person why I didn't do what he wanted, but
>
he was primarily interested in getting what he wnated, and I
>
was worried about what was best for the list and my server.
>
Ohwell.
>
>
I'm always happy to listen. Just don't assume that because I
>
listen I'll automatically do what you tell me to. I will --
>
if I think it's an improvement that won't screw over other
>
people using the lists.
>
>
...
>
>
Oh, here are a couple of other hints for getting things done
>
with me. First, don't come to me with an attitude that I'm
>
scum, and second, try facts instead of personal attacks.
>
Works wonders.
OK, let's get back to the facts:
Since the list has moved to a new server the format (of the
digest) has changed. Nigel made some comments on these changes to
which Chuq replied.
In all honesty -- this is an opinion -- the reply wasn't very
convincing. There was no elaboration on why the numbering of the
volume had changed, and with regards to more details of posters
being displayed the (unsubstantiated) claim was made that 'most'
people consider this a feature.
Personally I don't care that much about how the volumes are
numbered. Concerning the amount of information on posters that is
displayed on the list, I tend to agree with Nigel however. Why?
Because I feel that if people want to know more about the sender
of a particular posting they could approach this person directly.
Supplying additional information on posters should not be a task
of the List Gnome.
What I am missing in general is information on WHY the list had
to move to another server in the first place. Maybe if the
benefits of this change were communicated more there would be
more understanding -- I liked the list/digest fine the way it
was.
________________________________________________________________
Am I taking a risk with this posting? Guess the reactions will
tell me ;-)
________________________________________________________________
Alexander Schrieken
Amsterdam, the Netherlands