Re: a modest proposal

Hello Ray

I am replying a little late (can you say Jewish holiday) but from my point of view this method is wrong.

I got a lot of points reading the discussions between the members of the list.
Just posting the problem and then having a private discussion with the original poster will deny me a lot of interesting ideas that were swapped between the members.

I learn a lot from those discussions and would like to see the whole rather then seeing just how a certain problem was solved.
Many threads are evolving and moving on the new places, something that will disappear if we switch to the method you propose.

Adar Yechiel
Rechovot, Israel

Ray Stell wrote:

A list, Signal-to-Noise Ratio proposal...

The absolute best list I ever saw envolved with was the DEC alpha
managers list.  It was operated in a completely different way, no fluff,
ever, period.  Even more important was this, when a question was posted,
the community replied to the author directly, not to the list.  Keep
reading before you go off in a huff....

It was the job of the originator to post a meaningful summary
which could consist of the complete posts of the responders as needed.
Sometimes this was necessary since the originator didn't understand the

The responders would be responsible for policing the other summary
authors for their work quality.  If somebody was a bottom-feeder they
didn't hang around very long as the responders could run him off via
the list owner or by just not responding to those on the black list.
If someone disrupted the flow, it might take some follow-up posts to
clear things up, but it was amazing what a high level people operated at.
DEC developers were right there with you, really cool.

I proposed that idea in some incarnation of this list years ago. The idea was summarily blown off because the list folks wanted the freedom
to post anything they wanted and I'll bet they didn't trust that they
would get a good summary. They probably didn't get the idea that the
responders could rat out the bad guys and very quickly raise the community
standard. It does require an active moderator at least in the early stages.

True, there was less freedom to post your sarcasm.  That would have to
be given up.  You have to decide what kind of list you want.  I don't
think you can play it both ways as it is typically done here.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

The reason Ben is right about oracle-l is because people operate
as if they don't deserve freedom. If they had done so, we wouldn't need to give up the essential liberty as described in the proposal.

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 03:08:56PM -0500, Jesse, Rich wrote:

For me as a newbie at one point in various lists, I've looked at the
list's FAQ (among other places) before posting.  Having been on this
list for the past 4 list servers or so, I haven't bothered looking for
one recently, but a quick search following the link at the bottom of
every post didn't reveal one.  Perhaps one could be added, if only as a
pointer to or or something?

Also, despite the vast differences in the list members, I do think there
is much to be said for posters, both newbie and guru alike, to follow
resonable guidelines.  Despite some of the negative connotations to it's
intended audience ("Below-the-line" for those who have gone thru
accountability training), I think is an excellent
resource for all posters of this and any other "professional" list.

My abbreviated $.02, Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:50 AM
To: oracle-l
Subject: RTFM replies

I am receiving 65 messages per day, very few interesting ones among
them. Most of
these messages are sheer clutter, usually saying things like "here is my
query, why is it slow". The net result is the fact that this list is becoming less
and less [snip]

Mladen Gogala


Other related posts: