Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2001 15:26:02 -0400
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: I guess I'm giving up on the "experiment"
Message-ID:	<20010516152602.B18334@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010516113350 DOT 0163df78 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20010515190505 DOT A7473 AT redhat DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010516113350 DOT 0163df78 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com> <20010516123639 DOT G16057 AT redhat DOT com> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010516142006 DOT 020e4858 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<4.3.1.2.20010516142006.020e4858@pop.ma.ultranet.com>; from lhall@rfk.com on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:47:17PM -0400

Ok, here you go, trying to increase my number of posts to sources.redhat.com
mailing list.  I'm onto your game.  :-)

On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 02:47:17PM -0400, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>How important is it that we reduce the traffic on the list?  Is it just
>an annoyance to those of us that monitor it or is it an issue for Red
>Hat as well?

It's an issue for sources.redhat.com.  Cygwin mailing list traffic was
actually having an effect on email throughput.

IMO, it's also an issue in a larger sense in teaching people to fish
rather than giving them a fish (to use a hackneyed cliche).  I think
that people are relying on the mailing list as an alternative to
actually using their brains.  I believe that this is due to the fact
that we are all so remarkably responsive.

So, in retrospect, I wish I hadn't responded to the guy with maain()
problems.

>Was the point of the experiment to measure how many newbies and the
>like would find answers on their own if need-be or was it to measure
>how many folks could be coaxed into not responding to email in an
>attempt to mitigate duplicate replies to the same question?  Or was
>there another cycle we were trying to break?  I guess I'm just not
>quite sure what the overall goal of the experiment was, so its hard for
>me to offer an opinion on whether its end is premature.  Regardless, I
>was happy to participate, considering that the ultimate goal was to
>make the list better for all (I think ;-) )!

Hopefully my above response answers these questions.

So, I still plain on being very selective in my responses.  I won't
be able to resist people complaining about the "bug" of completely
redesigned mount output but I will try to resist answering the
"Why can't I compile my program" questions.

I would like to eventually investigate some sort of auto-FAQ system.
Or maybe just designating spear catchers for certain classes of
questions.

For instance, does anyone want to volunteer to answer the obvious
setup.exe questions, like "gcc says libuser32.a not found"?  If we all
knew that someone was going to answer a specific category of question
then we wouldn't have to worry about responding ourselves unless we
didn't see an answer for a couple of days.

cgf

- Raw text -