On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 10:44:17PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > It was implemented because at the time ubuntu-devel had a very low signal to > noise ratio and developers were getting frustrated (sound familiar). My > opinion is that it worked pretty well.
> Most of the noise immediately shifted to ubuntu-devel-discuss and a lot of > developers never subscribed to it, so they were immediately helped. > After some period of high noise, low value existence, the number of Ubuntu > developers that subscribed to ubuntu-devel-discuss declined further. It was > pointed out to some of the more problematic contributors that if they didn't > knock it off and be less abusive and more productive in their list messages, > they were going to have no developers left to talk to. > Eventually, the situation normalized and ubuntu-devel-discuss is a fairly low > volume list and most of the posts, if not particularly consistently well > informed, are from people that are trying to be constructive (not, of course, > right after controversial decisions get announced). The two lists separated > are, in my opinion much higher signal to noise than the old combined ones. I would also note that, in practice, ubuntu-devel is not so much moderated as it is rate limited. The non-developer posts to the list are AFAICT universally approved so long as they aren't spam; but the moderation delays are substantial enough that non-contributors have a chance to say their piece while having no opportunity to be disruptive. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
