Re: [Python-ideas] Moving to another forum system where moderation is possible
It's absence is a big advantage. We're not a social network with "likes". We don't need a bunch of argumentless "voting".
Up/ down voting indicates how much consensus we have among the entire community- an expert might agree with another expert’s arguments but not have anything else to add, and an outsider might agree with the scenario an expert presents without having much more to add. Granular up/down votes are useful.
Believe it or not, I like the fact that you can't just edit posts. I've lost count of the number of forum threads I've been on where comments to the initial post make *no sense* because that initial post is nothing like it was to start with.
There is version history. Not all of us have the time to read through every single post beforehand to get the current state of discussion. Hmm, what if we used GitHub as a discussion forum? You’d make a pull request with an informal proposal to a repository. Then people can comment on lines in the diff and reply to each other there. The OP can update their branch to change their proposal- expired/stale comments on old diffs are automatically hidden. You can also create a competing proposal by forming from the OP’s branch and sending a new PR.
Just editing your post and expecting people to notice is not going to cut it.
You would ping someone after editing the post.
Approximately none of this has anything to do with the medium. If the mailing list is obscure (and personally I don't think it is), it just needs better advertising. A poorly advertised forum is equally undiscoverable.
It does have to do with the medium. First, people aren’t used to mailing lists- but that’s not what’s important here. If the PSF advertised for people to sign up over say twitter, then we’d get even more email. More +1 and more -1. Most of us don’t want more mailing list volume. The fact that you can’t easily find an overview people will post arguments that have already been made if they don’t have the extreme patience to read all that has been said before. For the rest of your comments, I advise you to read the earlier discussion that other people had in response to my email.
That message was rather bad in my not so humble opinion -- it was just "I want my +1 button" without any argument. Your message is much better as it have arguments. See, the absence of the button work!
We're proposing and *discussing* things here not "likes" each other. Write your arguments or be silent.
Please respond to the actual arguments in both of the two emails that have arguments in support of +1/-1. +1/-1 reflects which usage scenarios people find valuable, since Python features sometimes do benefit one group at the detriment to another. Or use syntax/behavior for one thing that could be used for another thing, and some programming styles of python use cases would prefer one kind of that syntax/behavior.
+1 to everything James said.
This otherwise pointless mail is further evidence he’s right.
On 20 Sep 2018, at 17:08, James Lu
It's absence is a big advantage. We're not a social network with "likes". We don't need a bunch of argumentless "voting".
Up/ down voting indicates how much consensus we have among the entire community- an expert might agree with another expert’s arguments but not have anything else to add, and an outsider might agree with the scenario an expert presents without having much more to add. Granular up/down votes are useful.
Believe it or not, I like the fact that you can't just edit posts. I've lost count of the number of forum threads I've been on where comments to the initial post make *no sense* because that initial post is nothing like it was to start with.
There is version history. Not all of us have the time to read through every single post beforehand to get the current state of discussion.
Hmm, what if we used GitHub as a discussion forum? You’d make a pull request with an informal proposal to a repository. Then people can comment on lines in the diff and reply to each other there. The OP can update their branch to change their proposal- expired/stale comments on old diffs are automatically hidden.
You can also create a competing proposal by forming from the OP’s branch and sending a new PR.
Just editing your post and expecting people to notice is not going to cut it.
You would ping someone after editing the post.
Approximately none of this has anything to do with the medium. If the mailing list is obscure (and personally I don't think it is), it just needs better advertising. A poorly advertised forum is equally undiscoverable.
It does have to do with the medium. First, people aren’t used to mailing lists- but that’s not what’s important here. If the PSF advertised for people to sign up over say twitter, then we’d get even more email. More +1 and more -1. Most of us don’t want more mailing list volume.
The fact that you can’t easily find an overview people will post arguments that have already been made if they don’t have the extreme patience to read all that has been said before.
For the rest of your comments, I advise you to read the earlier discussion that other people had in response to my email.
That message was rather bad in my not so humble opinion -- it was just "I want my +1 button" without any argument. Your message is much better as it have arguments. See, the absence of the button work!
We're proposing and *discussing* things here not "likes" each other. Write your arguments or be silent.
Please respond to the actual arguments in both of the two emails that have arguments in support of +1/-1.
+1/-1 reflects which usage scenarios people find valuable, since Python features sometimes do benefit one group at the detriment to another. Or use syntax/behavior for one thing that could be used for another thing, and some programming styles of python use cases would prefer one kind of that syntax/behavior. _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
participants (2)
-
Anders Hovmöller -
James Lu