Time to split the Lua list?

[Phil Leblanc]

Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.

The first mailing list would be "Lua list as usual", containing a mix
of announcements, "how to do x?", "is x a bug?", "any Lua library to
do x?", "how to build Lua on x", etc.

The second mailing list would be "Lua Concepts Explanation and
Formalization". It would be dedicated to these long educational and/or
brainstorming threads.

The split would allow the mundane stuff, still interesting for a few
participants, not to be drowned in those higher level threads.
Conversely, It would open a space entirely dedicated to powerful
thinking, without the pollution of lesser matters.

Of course, for this to work, we should all avoid Explaining and
Formalizing in the first list, but rather do it in the second list.

What do you think?

(slightly-tongue-in-cheek-ly) yours,

Phil

[Petite Abeille]

Post by Phil Leblanc
What do you think?

Plonk?

[Phil Leblanc]

Post by Petite Abeille
Plonk?

Yeah, but not a solution for people reading Lua list on the archive :-)

[Matthias Kluwe]

Post by Petite Abeille

Post by Phil Leblanc
What do you think?

Plonk?

Works.

[Phil Leblanc]

Post by Matthias Kluwe

Post by Petite Abeille
Plonk?

Works.

Works for mail. Not when reading from lua-l archive... Must probably
just get faster at hitting the [Thread Next] link :-)

[Albert Chan]

Post by Phil Leblanc
The split would allow the mundane stuff, still interesting for a few
participants, not to be drowned in those higher level threads.
Conversely, It would open a space entirely dedicated to powerful
thinking, without the pollution of lesser matters.
Phil

Looking at the statistics, Lua mailing list does not warrant a split ...
Besides, everyone will join the "powerful thinking" group. :-D

[Tim Hill]

Post by Phil Leblanc
Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.
The first mailing list would be "Lua list as usual", containing a mix
of announcements, "how to do x?", "is x a bug?", "any Lua library to
do x?", "how to build Lua on x", etc.
The second mailing list would be "Lua Concepts Explanation and
Formalization". It would be dedicated to these long educational and/or
brainstorming threads.
The split would allow the mundane stuff, still interesting for a few
participants, not to be drowned in those higher level threads.
Conversely, It would open a space entirely dedicated to powerful
thinking, without the pollution of lesser matters.
Of course, for this to work, we should all avoid Explaining and
Formalizing in the first list, but rather do it in the second list.
What do you think?
(slightly-tongue-in-cheek-ly) yours,
Phil

Good idea on paper, and I’ve seen it tried before. All that happens is ppl post the same message to BOTH lists and chaos ensues :(

—Tim

[Lorenzo Donati]

[...]

Post by Tim Hill

Post by Phil Leblanc
What do you think?
(slightly-tongue-in-cheek-ly) yours,
Phil

Good idea on paper, and I’ve seen it tried before. All that happens
is ppl post the same message to BOTH lists and chaos ensues :(

Yep (sadly)!

"Let's post there too, just in case..." *sigh!*

This reminds me of:

"You can't solve social issues with technology."

(citation needed - I forgot who said that, but always true)

Post by Tim Hill
—Tim

Cheers!

-- Lorenzo [1]

[1] Don't feed the Trolls! ;-)

[Dirk Laurie]

Post by Phil Leblanc
Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.
The first mailing list would be "Lua list as usual", containing a mix
of announcements, "how to do x?", "is x a bug?", "any Lua library to
do x?", "how to build Lua on x", etc.
The second mailing list would be "Lua Concepts Explanation and
Formalization". It would be dedicated to these long educational and/or
brainstorming threads.
The split would allow the mundane stuff, still interesting for a few
participants, not to be drowned in those higher level threads.
Conversely, It would open a space entirely dedicated to powerful
thinking, without the pollution of lesser matters.
Of course, for this to work, we should all avoid Explaining and
Formalizing in the first list, but rather do it in the second list.
What do you think?

Not gonna work. Only people who are already well-behaved will
disciplined enough to respect the split.

I personally classify list members on past performance. Posts from
those I have categorized as chronic hair-splitters [1] only get
opened, let alone read, when I have leisure available plus an
indulgent attitude.

[1] I've got a liitle list of those who won't be missed.

[Roberto Ierusalimschy]

Post by Dirk Laurie
I personally classify list members on past performance. Posts from
those I have categorized as chronic hair-splitters [1] only get
opened, let alone read, when I have leisure available plus an
indulgent attitude.

+1 :-)

-- Roberto

[Jeff Pohlmeyer]

Post by Phil Leblanc
Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.

I still stand by my suggestion from several years ago:
lua-users: For people who want to *use* Lua.
lua-devel: For people who want to *change* Lua.

- Jeff

[Dirk Laurie]

Op Ma. 3 Des. 2018 om 10:04 het Jeff Pohlmeyer

Post by Jeff Pohlmeyer

Post by Phil Leblanc
Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.

lua-users: For people who want to *use* Lua.
lua-devel: For people who want to *change* Lua.

Would not [USE] and [DEV] in the subject line, lile [ANN] mostly is
used already, do the trick?

[Dirk Laurie]

Post by Phil Leblanc
Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.

There are actually three clusters:

1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.

No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

[Lorenzo Donati]

Post by Dirk Laurie

Post by Phil Leblanc
Looking at posts in the Lua mailing list in the last few weeks, it
seems that they belong to two quite distinct clusters, so I think it
might be time to split this list in two.

1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Yep!!! Best one-liner analysis I've ever read about that problem!

I'd add that splitting the list would /increment/ the overall traffic of
people belonging to 3: they'll have /two/ lists where to post!

From my experience people belonging to the 3rd category have found a
way to break space-time continuum: they can post the same amount of text
to any list they subscribe, regardless of how many these lists are!


:-D

[Jeff Pohlmeyer]

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Agreed, but the overwhelming majority of long-winded #3 threads I've seen
here would end up on list #2, so at least least the #1 list would stay
a bit cleaner.

- Jeff

[John Hind]

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Lists 2 and 3 should be made digest only. This would mean that:

a. The built-in time delay would have an automatic moderating effect.

b. Members would automatically have to supply a 'proof of work' in that
they would have to work out how to decrypt the messages courtesy of that
decades old bug in the list software! Also perhaps 'proof of
intelligence'?

This should weed out the armchair language designers (including, I
admit, me!). I'm only still here because I'm too damn lazy to work out
how to cancel my subscription! I've still not worked out which is more
meaningless - the random blocks of ASCII in the message digests or yet
another thread about nil in tables!

[Gé Weijers]

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
and 500 words/day?)
This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
message will bounce...

--
Gé

[Petite Abeille]

Post by Gé Weijers
weigh their words carefully

“I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.”

― Mark Twain

[Dirk Laurie]

Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 03:37 het Petite Abeille

Post by Petite Abeille
“I apologize for such a long letter - I didn't have time to write a short one.”
― Mark Twain

Mark Twain never wrote that. [1]

The original version is in Pascal's Provincial Letters [2]. Very few
authors can be quite as turgid as a mathematician writing to Jesuits
on a subtle religious point [3]. Letter XVI is particularly good
bedtime reading, if your purpose is dropping off soon. Its second-last

Post by Petite Abeille
Reverend fathers, my letters were not wont either to be so prolix, or to follow so closely on one another. Want of time must plead my excuse for both of these faults. The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.

[1] https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/
[2] Full text of M'Crie's 1886 translation, from which I quote, is
widely available online.
[3] Or a philosopher posting to the Lua list on a subtle programming point.

[Petite Abeille]

Post by Dirk Laurie
Mark Twain never wrote that. [1]

mwhahaha :D

https://xkcd.com/386/

[Sean Conner]

Post by Gé Weijers

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
and 500 words/day?)
This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
message will bounce...

Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright. Group 2 isn't *that*
bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.

-spc

[Dirk Laurie]

Post by Sean Conner

Post by Gé Weijers

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
and 500 words/day?)
This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
message will bounce...

Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright. Group 2 isn't *that*
bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.

Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all
three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.

[Sean Conner]

Post by Dirk Laurie

Post by Sean Conner

Post by Gé Weijers

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
and 500 words/day?)
This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
message will bounce...

Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright. Group 2 isn't *that*
bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.

Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all
three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.

Sure, I'll admit to that, but I did say "best course of action" with
respect to group 3.

Okay, how about "ignore messages that fall into category 3." I still
stand by my stance towards group 2, especially for repeat offenders.

-spc

[Dirk Laurie]

Post by Sean Conner
Okay, how about "ignore messages that fall into category 3." I still
stand by my stance towards group 2, especially for repeat offenders.

Our present practice is that sooner or later Luiz or Robertio says
that's enough, and if anybody then just continues regardless, list
software surely makes provision for blocking a poster. Moreover, I
have my own (very short) blacklist which is routed to trash by my mail
client.

Basically, my own rule (not followed slavishly) is if I find my
fingers typing TL;DR, I hit the "discard message" button next.

[Lorenzo Donati]

Post by Dirk Laurie

Post by Sean Conner

Post by Gé Weijers

Post by Dirk Laurie
1. Those who use Lua as it is.
2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.

Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
and 500 words/day?)
This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
message will bounce...

Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright. Group 2 isn't *that*
bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.

Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all
three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.

IMO, the problem is not that many (most?, all?) of us had been part of
any of those group /sometimes/ and/or /briefly/.

I dare say that even some posts falling into group #3 may sometimes be
useful food for thought. Even if they generate long-winded threads.

The problem are the ones who consistently, insistently and almost
exclusively fall into group #3 for (almost) every message they post!

These are the kind of persons that (e.g.), when asked whether they want
sugar in their coffee, start a rant about how bad is eating sugar, go on
for half an hour, then get the sugar and talk for /another half an hour/
on how bad coffee tastes without sugar (and maybe criticize you because
you asked for tea instead)! O_O

This makes the list S/N (signal to noise) ratio much worse.

[Jim]

things would be easier if some people could stop
their (mailtool's ?) bad habit of sending html encoded
mails to this list (or an additional html version of the text
attached to their mails).
this is unnecessary as mail is simply text based.

[Dibyendu Majumdar]

I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our
liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but
it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of
course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.

[Peter Hickman]

Post by Dibyendu Majumdar
I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our
liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but
it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of
course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.

If the Lua mailing list is too much to handle perhaps OP could start their
own. Someone, who shall not be named, went off and did that and it became
much calmer round here as a result.

[Dirk Laurie]

Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 11:11 het Peter Hickman

I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.

If the Lua mailing list is too much to handle perhaps OP could start their own. Someone, who shall not be named, went off and did that and it became much calmer round here as a result.

And let's face it, not even the most prolix or solipsistic among
current posters can be called obnoxious in comparison to that
posturer.

[Phil Leblanc]

I should have made more explicit that my initial post was entirely
tongue-in-cheek, not serious. Just venting out a tiny bit of
frustration.

I certainly don't want a lua-l split (of course it wouldn't work), and
not more control over what people post.

So, sorry for the noise (I feel the irony), and back to practicing my
"don't open" reflex and "indulgent attitude", as Dirk put it :-)

Post by Dirk Laurie
Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 11:11 het Peter Hickman

I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.

If the Lua mailing list is too much to handle perhaps OP could start their own. Someone, who shall not be named, went off and did that and it became much calmer round here as a result.

And let's face it, not even the most prolix or solipsistic among
current posters can be called obnoxious in comparison to that
posturer.

[Lorenzo Donati]

Post by Dibyendu Majumdar
I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our
liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but
it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of
course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.

I agree on but with a caveat: even OT threads (if marked so) have been
useful and interesting on this list (e.g., I mildly remember some
"survey" about which was the best beginner programming language which
leveraged on the wide audience of this list).

[Peter Hickman]

So what are we going to do, ban someone for posting a message 501 words
long or does the mailing list bounce it? Is this 5 messages per 24 hours
(do the banned messages count to this limit) or 1 calendar day (and in
which timezone)?

Won't this encourage cryptic yoof like txt messaging rather than easy to
read messages that non native speakers will have further difficulty reading

Ill conceived with no thought of the consequences - have you considered a
career in politics?