[MOVED] Renaming of mailing lists to avoid user confusion
Tom Tobin
<mal...@pointy-stick.com> wrote:
> Please take this thread to django-users. This list is for the internal
> development of django and this thread doesn't contribute to that.
Done.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:14 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss
<jacob.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Seriously - this comes up every couple of months, and it's just a
> bikeshed argument. We get about one off-topic post every ten days or
> so; hardly an onerous task to gently point folks to the right place.
> There's pretty clear explanations about what each list is for right
> there on the sign-up pages; we'll just trade folks who ignore that
> text for folks who ignore another bit.
Those figures are off. We get roughly one off-topic post in
django-dev every other day (considering August thus far, and not
counting posters who immediately realized their mistake without
prompting).
And this *isn't* a bikeshed argument. There is obviously substantial
confusion over what the terms "users" and "developers" mean in the
context of Django. We're attracting *lots* of people (3849 on
-developers, 10431 on -users), and the problem hasn't abated; it's
only going to get worse.
Let me propose a stopgap: edit the django-users and django-developers
pages to state, in large bold text, what the purpose of each list is
(this is "edit welcome message" in Google Groups). Let's see if that
helps any, and come back to this in a month or so.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick
<mal...@pointy-stick.com> wrote:
> What will happen is that this thread will generate far more
> traffic than the infrequent accidental mis-postings and clog up the
> recent postings in our inboxes, obscuring stuff that gets actual
> development work done.
As an aside (and perhaps this is a topic for another thread), I really
don't like that "meta" discussion gets shoved off into -users;
django-users is *far* too high-traffic, and I don't keep myself
subscribed to it because I can't possibly keep up with 100+ messages a
day. It's high about time that -users got split into a couple of
different lists (IMHO "django-support", and "django-community"). I'm
completely fine with the development list staying completely on the
topic of, well, *development*, but the way "django-users" has become
"django-catchall" is fairly detrimental to focusing on what's of
interest to various individuals.
(FWIW, I've registered "django-support" and "django-community" as
locked groups, and will gladly hand them over to someone in core / DSF
/ etc.)
Marty Alchin
> And this *isn't* a bikeshed argument. There is obviously substantial
> confusion over what the terms "users" and "developers" mean in the
> context of Django. We're attracting *lots* of people (3849 on
> -developers, 10431 on -users), and the problem hasn't abated; it's
> only going to get worse.
Just so I have this right, the as-yet-unspoken implication in this
suggestion is that nearly 4,000 people subscribe to a new list, update
any email rules they may have set up, etc. In addition, we fragment
the development mailing list archive into a "2005-2008" archive and a
"2008-present" archive. As such, we also chop any threads that may be
in progress during the move, hoping they'll continue without incident
on the new list. And that's not considering the hassle of trying to
actually follow those threads later, given that it'd span two separate
archives.
> (FWIW, I've registered "django-support" and "django-community" as
> locked groups, and will gladly hand them over to someone in core / DSF
> / etc.)
Interesting. So now we're considering asking over 10,000 people to
subscribe to up to two new mailing lists, just to continue discussions
they have happily today. And again, we have the whole multiple-archive
problem and hacked-up threads. More to the point, neither of those
would solve the problem, since the issue here isn't that
"django-users" isn't descriptive enough; it's that "django-developers"
is also descriptive enough. If you're registering new names, why not
register a new name for the mailing list actually experiencing the
problem?
Now, I'm admit: I do realize that Django 1.0 involves some necessary
backwards-incompatibilities. But should mailing list subscriptions
really be added to that list? Troubling nearly 15,000 people to change
3-year-old habits because a few people are annoyed by off-topic emails
every other day (or so) just doesn't seem worth it to me.
As always, one man's opinion.
-Gul
Mike Scott
> Just so I have this right, the as-yet-unspoken implication in this
> suggestion is that nearly 4,000 people subscribe to a new list, update
> any email rules they may have set up, etc. In addition, we fragment
> the development mailing list archive into a "2005-2008" archive and a
> "2008-present" archive. As such, we also chop any threads that may be
> in progress during the move, hoping they'll continue without incident
> on the new list. And that's not considering the hassle of trying to
> actually follow those threads later, given that it'd span two separate
> archives.
>
> subscribe to up to two new mailing lists, just to continue discussions
> they have happily today. And again, we have the whole multiple-archive
> problem and hacked-up threads. More to the point, neither of those
> would solve the problem, since the issue here isn't that
> "django-users" isn't descriptive enough; it's that "django-developers"
> is also descriptive enough. If you're registering new names, why not
> register a new name for the mailing list actually experiencing the
> problem?
>
> Now, I'm admit: I do realize that Django 1.0 involves some necessary
> backwards-incompatibilities. But should mailing list subscriptions
> really be added to that list? Troubling nearly 15,000 people to change
> 3-year-old habits because a few people are annoyed by off-topic emails
> every other day (or so) just doesn't seem worth it to me.
groups to be renamed, further more groups emails can stay as they were
or changed as well to a new one. All this retaining the history, and
subscribers. So it would merely make it an issue to people who are
sending emails initially. To me thats not a big one at all.
So the fact that you say we have to force nearly 15000 people to
change is a rather void argument. I'm pretty sure the people who use
django-users mainly do it through the web interface - so to them it
would only mean the changing of a web address. Everybodies
subscriptions would stay in tact, they would just have to send to a
slightly different web address.
There are going to be some initial confusions, yes, but considering it
all I think it'll do more good, than bad.
> As always, one man's opinion.
Mike.
Marty Alchin
> So the fact that you say we have to force nearly 15000 people to
> change is a rather void argument.
Thanks for correcting me. I haven't administered a Google Group
before, so I didn't realize they had measures in place to deal with
these sorts of situations.
-Gul
Russell Keith-Magee
>
> So the fact that you say we have to force nearly 15000 people to
> change is a rather void argument. I'm pretty sure the people who use
> django-users mainly do it through the web interface
I'd be interested to know how you back up this assertion. The default
mode of operation of a Google Group is as a mailing list, and you need
to be a member of the group to post. Personally, I almost never use
the web interface unless I'm looking for a link to reference a
specific message.
> - so to them it
> would only mean the changing of a web address. Everybodies
> subscriptions would stay in tact, they would just have to send to a
> slightly different web address.
This solves the split archive problem, but it doesn't solve the
problem of 3 years of email referring to the 'django-dev' archive.
Google groups is good, but it isn't magic.
It also doesn't solve the many places that duplicate the django
mailing list archives.
> There are going to be some initial confusions, yes, but considering it
> all I think it'll do more good, than bad.
Completely aside from any technical or archival disadvantages, this
whole argument hinges on one important assertion: that it is possible
to fix this problem with a rename. To this argument I say 'poppycock'.
To whit:
If we call it django-developers, some users will think "Oh, I'm
developing for django, so I'll mail here"
If we call it django-internals, some users will think "Oh, I'm
developing using the internals of django, so I'll mail here"
If we call it django-core (even if it wasn't already taken), some
users will think "Oh, I'm using the django core, so I'll mail here".
Yes, the current name is ambiguous. So is every other possible name.
This is completely aside from the "lazy user" problems, which no
rename will solve:
* django-developers (or alias) has a smaller readership, so I'm more
likely to get an answer
* django-developers (or alias) has more experienced developers, so
I'm more likely to get an answer
* django-developers (or alias) is the first Django mailing list
someone found in a search, so they mail without looking for a better
forum.
So, -1 from me.
Russ %-)
Kenneth Gonsalves
On 20-Aug-08, at 8:29 AM, Mike Scott wrote:
> I'm pretty sure the people who use
> django-users mainly do it through the web interface
I seriously doubt this. Maybe I am old fashioned, but I think most
serious members of mailing lists use their desktop
--
regards
kg
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
http://nrcfosshelpline.in/code/
Steve Holden
still have to update our filters. Not a huge per-user load, but I'd be
slightly pissed. Multiply by an appropriate factor. I'm not convinced
that renaming would actually improve the situation.
FWIW python-dev has exactly the same issue, and it's handled without
these continuous navel-contemplation exercises. As far as splitting up
django-users into multiple groups, wouldn't the "offenders" simply start
copying all django-* groups?
regards
Steve
--
Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/
Tom Tobin
> Let me propose a stopgap: edit the django-users and django-developers
> pages to state, in large bold text, what the purpose of each list is
> (this is "edit welcome message" in Google Groups). Let's see if that
> helps any, and come back to this in a month or so.
Amidst the concern over split archives, filters, and topics (some of
which is valid, I'll grant), I was disappointed to see this suggestion
go unremarked. This is an *easy* action that might have immediate
beneficial consequences, has no drawbacks, and will take someone all
of five minutes to accomplish.
Tom Tobin
> don't like that "meta" discussion gets shoved off into -users;
> django-users is *far* too high-traffic, and I don't keep myself
> subscribed to it because I can't possibly keep up with 100+ messages a
> day.
Renaming issues aside — am I the only one who is bothered by how many
messages-per-day -users gets vs. noticing "interesting" topics (where
"interesting" depends on the individual, of course)? django-users has
become such a catchall that I feel simply overwhelmed, and as I
stated, I tend to simply not read it as a result. In the spirit of
"bring me problems, not solutions" (with apologies to Jeff Croft),
I've got a problem here; does anyone have a solution?
Marty Alchin
> Renaming issues aside — am I the only one who is bothered by how many
> messages-per-day -users gets vs. noticing "interesting" topics (where
> "interesting" depends on the individual, of course)? django-users has
> become such a catchall that I feel simply overwhelmed, and as I
> stated, I tend to simply not read it as a result. In the spirit of
> "bring me problems, not solutions" (with apologies to Jeff Croft),
> I've got a problem here; does anyone have a solution?
<clever, snarky retort removed for the sake of the rest of the list>
Here's my present solution, in its entirety:
1. Check email
2. Select all messages on the screen
3. Scan the message subjects, looking for interesting topics
4. Deselect those messages that look interesting.
5. Archive all selected messages
6. Repeat steps 2-5 for each page of messages
7. Read interesting messages
Steps 2 through 6, on average, take about 30 seconds total, if I only
check my email about every 8 hours or so. If I check more often, it's
even less time to do. I'm a lot like you, I like reading interesting
things more than the other stuff, but 30 seconds every 8 hours is
hardly a showstopper to clean up my mailbox so it's more manageable.
Beyond that, I do have one possible idea, but it's not yet fully
formed, so I'll keep it to myself for now.
-Gul
daonb
> messages-per-day -users gets vs. noticing "interesting" topics (where
> "interesting" depends on the individual, of course)? django-users has
> become such a catchall that I feel simply overwhelmed, and as I
> stated, I tend to simply not read it as a result. In the spirit of
> "bring me problems, not solutions" (with apologies to Jeff Croft),
> I've got a problem here; does anyone have a solution?
Django's community is split into three: core developers working on the
trunk, users that need help with their projects and evangelists
focused on 'meta-issues' and spreading the word. While a google group
is a good solution for the developers and evangelists it's not
targeted at providing help and support.
I suggest to replace this group with a support service targeted at
helping users - something like http://getsatisfaction.com - keep
django-developers or rename it to django-trunk and start a new group
django-evanglists for all those who promote django.
Malcolm Tredinnick
On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 12:55 -0700, daonb wrote:
[...]
> While a google group
> is a good solution for the developers and evangelists it's not
> targeted at providing help and support.
Do you have any actual evidence to back that claim up?
Because over the last three years, this group has done an *excellent*
job at providing help and support. And, yes, I have the credibility to
make that claim: I have never posted a request for support on this list
and have posted the most number of mails to the list of anybody over the
years.
Moving from something available as a mailing list to a web forum will
fragment and reduce the audience.
Malcolm
Norman Harman
> Because over the last three years, this group has done an *excellent*
> job at providing help and support. And, yes, I have the credibility to
> make that claim: I have never posted a request for support on this list
> and have posted the most number of mails to the list of anybody over the
> years.
>
> Moving from something available as a mailing list to a web forum will
> fragment and reduce the audience.
>
> Malcolm
As a loooong time reader of django-users I can attest to how helpful it
and Malcolm's post were/are.
A large part of my Django knowledge is due to this list and esp Malcolm,
thanks btw. And I'm now happily contributing back answering whatever
posts I can when I have the time. But checking a couple times a day
it's rare to find post that hasn't already been answered.
I don't see what problem is trying to be solved.
The legion of Django users is ever growing. So much so it's now
relatively easy to get a Python dev job due in large part I believe to
Django's popularity and successes(at least I got one). Besides
excellent base documentation, there are free books, blogs,
cookbook/snippet site, IRC, and mailing lists. Help is abundant and in
many forms.
--
Norman J. Harman Jr.
Senior Web Specialist, Austin American-Statesman
___________________________________________________________________________
It's August! Keep your cool with the Statesman. Check out our hot
deals in print and online for back-to-school savings and more!
James Matthews
If this is really a big issue then make a poll and people can vote on what they want.
James
P.S I don't use googles web interface for me it's outlook express (mailing list)
daonb
> > is a good solution for the developers and evangelists it's not
> > targeted at providing help and support.
>
> Do you have any actual evidence to back that claim up?
using it to provide support, but it's also being used for cake
recipes.
>
> Because over the last three years, this group has done an *excellent*
> job at providing help and support. And, yes, I have the credibility to
> make that claim: I have never posted a request for support on this list
> and have posted the most number of mails to the list of anybody over the
> years.
Django users. I'm just trying to help with an idea on how to keep it
up when we'll have 50,000 users in this group.
Nick Lo
Just as a comment from a newbie from over the fence:
As a PHP/Zend Framework developer playing with Django I actually
thought the Django list names and setup to be very simple in
comparison to the Zend Framework ones which are broken up by
component. The traffic in the ZF mailing lists has had an inevitable
increase in questions from those new to the framework and I've found
it is no longer easy to keep up with the internal development of the
framework through these lists.
In comparison the Django lists are a lot easier to follow, so I really
don't think you have a problem at all. As Russell says, whatever name
you choose will be ambiguous anyway. Also, developer (of Django) and
user (of Django) are fairly standard names for these kind of lists in
my experience.
In short: No confusion for this user.
Nick
Nick Lo
> that we are thinking of splitting the mailing list why don't we
> split it according to parts of django! Each one will have a unique
> mailing list. django.contib.admin will be one mailing list etc... jk
Breaking it up by components presumes some kind of prior knowledge of
the architecture of the framework.
As I mentioned in my other post, my experience with the Zend Framework
list would suggest that this isn't a good idea. For one thing it
doesn't do anything to stop the flow of user questions into the
internals discussions and in fact makes them worse as users are even
more confused as to where they should ask questions. It would more
than likely just increase the need to redirect traffic to the correct
list.
Nick
Nick Lo
> Django users. I'm just trying to help with an idea on how to keep it
> up when we'll have 50,000 users in this group.
Why would splitting those 50,000 users up into separate and
potentially equally ambiguous groups make them any easier than just
having two user groups? All you would be doing is increasing the need
to have senior members of the list redirecting the traffic rather than
answering questions.
Also, if the group has more members, surely it therefore has more
people able to answer questions?
The thing most threatened by an increase in users in a group is not so
much user confusion but more the sense of community. It would be
harder to recognise the senior members of the group. For these lists
though, this actually isn't a problem as all you need do is subscribe
to the developer list to get to know who they are.
Nick
Julien Phalip
Most support questions posted in django-dev are posted by new comers.
Once they've been told they posted in the wrong list, they don't post
there again (I mean, they don't post *support questions* there again).
Also, I think that most new comers first access either django-users or
django-dev via the web interface. I don't have any proof of that, but
that's what seems most probable.
So, add that note on the django-dev and django-users group web
interface. It doesn't cost anything and I bet it will prevent 90% (if
not all) of the problematic emails.