From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Horn Subject: Re: Let's stick to one list for now Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:23:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <87k4gldb1s.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> <4D6B6FFA.50706@gmail.com> <877hcks9qt.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87zkpg8k9r.fsf@keller.adm.naquadah.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=57214 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pu9d7-000838-W9 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:23:42 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pu9d6-0002Lx-OS for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:23:41 -0500 Received: from mail-fx0-f41.google.com ([209.85.161.41]:53688) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pu9d6-0002Lp-HW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:23:40 -0500 Received: by fxm5 with SMTP id 5so4812853fxm.0 for ; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 12:23:39 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Dan Davison Cc: Bastien , emacs-orgmode@gnu.org On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Dan Davison wrote: > Julien Danjou writes: > >> On Mon, Feb 28 2011, Bastien wrote: >> >> The point is that there's no gain in telling people to add "[DEV]" since >> they will forget (I will), and there is _no_ lose by splitting a list. I > > Hi Julien, > > No, I disagree with that. The two lists would have distinct compositions of the > reader audience and that does have downsides. For example, I would also like to re-emphasize my disagreement with Julien's opinion. There is something to lose by splitting the list, as I mentioned in the main thread: the mixture was entirely useful for me, and *quite* pedagogical. I think the readership would be asymmetric in the case of a split list. Research in behavioral economics suggests people should be given sane defaults to prevent a harmful status quo bias. I don't think most users ever attempt to read devel lists. I'd also like to register a theory as to why users don't read devel lists, and why this works for some other software: devs condescend to handle user issues. Most open source software is created by people who need the tool for personal use. They aren't necessarily interested in your corner cases. For org-mode, this isn't the case; I've never felt anything but welcomed by the people who usually develop. A split list might also hurt this natural connection devs have with org-mode users. Relationships are *especially* important where there aren't market forces (read: price) to discipline developers into listening to users demands. That's the truth about any platform (two-sided) market with a zero price. This may sound admittedly contrived, and a bit pumped up in regard to the size of the effect. But there is a difference between small, noticeable, and highly personal changes and a "_no_ lose" scenario. Top-down policies have to be made with these small effects in mind, with an eye toward unintended consequences of a change. (Strawman alert. Begging Julien's pardon...) "But," Julien might say, "my concerns count just as much as yours, and I don't really like managing all this user mail." That is true. But you are a power user and have many tools at your disposal to automate mail handling. There is a relatively easy end solution. A top-down change messes with the community ecosystem. Future users' concerns should count for something, even if not a full measure. -- Jeffrey Horn http://www.failuretorefrain.com/jeff/