Who maintains ruby-talk?

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Among other things, the ruby-talk MLM is rampant with security
vulnerabilities, and in need of moderation.

Is there actually a person in charge of ruby-talk?

 

[Brian Candler]

Among other things, the ruby-talk MLM is rampant with security
vulnerabilities, and in need of moderation.

Is there actually a person in charge of ruby-talk?

There are admin contact addresses here:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/manual-instructions/

(While you're at it, you could ask for the broken link at the bottom of
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/
which is supposed to point to "the manual way" to be fixed)

 

[Robert Klemme]

Among other things, the ruby-talk MLM is rampant with security
vulnerabilities, and in need of moderation.

Did you just suggest that ruby-talk should become a moderated list?

Kind regards

robert

 

[Michael Jackson]

Just last week I was having problems managing my subscription via the
list controller. When I tried the "manual way"
(http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/manual-instructions/)
I couldn't get the bot to respond either. As a last resort I emailed
the human administrator address ([email protected]) and
got a response from Matz himself.

Perhaps that's the problem. The list is being maintained by a person
who most assuredly doesn't have time for it because he has much more
important things to do!

Michael

 

[Rich McGrath]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Maybe this mailing list might be better suited in a forum.

Just last week I was having problems managing my subscription via the
list controller. When I tried the "manual way"
(http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/manual-instructions/)
I couldn't get the bot to respond either. As a last resort I emailed
the human administrator address ([email protected]) and
got a response from Matz himself.

Perhaps that's the problem. The list is being maintained by a person
who most assuredly doesn't have time for it because he has much more
important things to do!

Michael

--
Michael Jackson
http://mjijackson.com/
@mjijackson

Among other things, the ruby-talk MLM is rampant with security
vulnerabilities, and in need of moderation.

Is there actually a person in charge of ruby-talk?

--
Rich McGrath
Tech Lead for Bitmob.com
(e-mail address removed)
www.Bitmob.com
www.twitter.com/Bitmobrich

 

[Robert Klemme]

Maybe this mailing list might be better suited in a forum.

Well, a mailing list is a forum as well.

Also, please note this:
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/207947#905025



Cheers

robert

 

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Did you just suggest that ruby-talk should become a moderated list?

Yes, given the recent high volume of off-topic posts, I think it's clear the
list is in need of a moderator, at the very least someone who can warn/ban
users who make high volumes of off-topic posts.

 

[Josh Cheek]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Yes, given the recent high volume of off-topic posts, I think it's clear
the
list is in need of a moderator, at the very least someone who can warn/ban
users who make high volumes of off-topic posts.

You know, the Nazis had moderators, but they made the Jews wear them.

Sorry, Office Space ^_^

Unless things got completely unusable, I'd much prefer if there wasn't
someone with the power to kick people off the list whenever the whim struck
them. Between spam filters and community policing, I think this list is
fine.

 

[Aldric Giacomoni]

Yes, given the recent high volume of off-topic posts, I think it's clear
the
list is in need of a moderator, at the very least someone who can
warn/ban
users who make high volumes of off-topic posts.

Tony,
I need to disagree with you here. This idea makes the hair on my neck
stand on end.

 

[Dylan Northrup]

A long time ago, (15.04.10), in a galaxy far, far away, Josh Cheek wrote:

:=Unless things got completely unusable, I'd much prefer if there wasn't
:=someone with the power to kick people off the list whenever the whim struck
:=them. Between spam filters and community policing, I think this list is
:=fine.

It's gotten to an unusable space for me. I regularly delete all messages
after scanning the subjects without reading them. Up until approximately a
month ago I would actually read the majority of the posts to see what is
posted as well as learn from example code posted by others. But given the
recent spate of off-topic garbage the list has pretty much become unusable.

I'm hopeful that something will change and the spammers/off-topic posts will
go elsewhere, but would very much appreciate being able to have someone step
in to stop the madness.

 

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Unless things got completely unusable, I'd much prefer if there wasn't
someone with the power to kick people off the list

For what it's worth, I've considered unsubscribing due to the high volume of
off-topic email.

 

[Josh Cheek]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

It's gotten to an unusable space for me. I regularly delete all messages
after scanning the subjects without reading them. Up until approximately a
month ago I would actually read the majority of the posts to see what is
posted as well as learn from example code posted by others. But given the
recent spate of off-topic garbage the list has pretty much become unusable.

I'm hopeful that something will change and the spammers/off-topic posts
will
go elsewhere, but would very much appreciate being able to have someone
step
in to stop the madness.

For what it's worth, I've considered unsubscribing due to the high volume
of
off-topic email.

Perhaps I've missed something, I thought this was a reaction to Thunk, but
he only posts in a few threads.

I notice you both have email addresses from hosts I'm not familiar with,
perhaps they don't group posts into threads, so you get hit with about ten
times as many messages as I do. That would be frustrating.

I still don't personally support moderation, but if most of the list does,
then we should see what options we have.

 

[Given Mahlangeni [HQP - Information Management]]

You should be died, Michael Jackson died long time ago.

Given Mahlangeni
Technical Support Specialist
HQP - Information Management
=20
Tel: +27 12 307 3230
Fax: +27 86 665 8050
Mobile: +27 82 732 2755
Email: (e-mail address removed)
URL: www.exxaro.com
cid:[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Jackson [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:31 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Who maintains ruby-talk?

Just last week I was having problems managing my subscription via the
list controller. When I tried the "manual way"
(http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/manual-instructions
/)
I couldn't get the bot to respond either. As a last resort I emailed
the human administrator address ([email protected]) and
got a response from Matz himself.

Perhaps that's the problem. The list is being maintained by a person
who most assuredly doesn't have time for it because he has much more
important things to do!

Michael

--
Michael Jackson
http://mjijackson.com/
@mjijackson

Among other things, the ruby-talk MLM is rampant with security
vulnerabilities, and in need of moderation.

Is there actually a person in charge of ruby-talk?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=

 

[Andrea Dallera]

While the thunk phase's been pretty annoying it looks like now it's
over. I suggest to wait a month or so and see if things get better: if
not, then I'm all into taking actions against spam and OT.

My 2c,

 

[Seebs]

Unless things got completely unusable, I'd much prefer if there wasn't
someone with the power to kick people off the list whenever the whim struck
them. Between spam filters and community policing, I think this list is
fine.

Remember to distinguish between "power" and "authority".

Right now, someone, somewhere, has the power to kick people off the list.
The list runs somewhere; someone has the keys to that computer, and can
modify anything on it.

Realistically, you can either have some kind of moderation, or offer a free
spam reflector service complete with malware delivery. I'd recommend
the former.

-s

 

[Seebs]

I notice you both have email addresses from hosts I'm not familiar with,
perhaps they don't group posts into threads, so you get hit with about ten
times as many messages as I do. That would be frustrating.

Hosts are not what group posts into threads. Mail clients are.

Ignoring the bandwidth cost because you don't see it is not totally rational.

-s

 

[jonty]

I have just rescanned my ruby-talk inbox folder - I can't see any'off
topic' threads,

what do you mean by off-topic?

There is a wide variety of discussions, many of which I feel free to
ignore but because there is no further filtering I often find myself
drawn in to an interesting discussion that improves my programming practice.

Are you being a little narrow minded?

 

[Robert Dober]

I have just rescanned my ruby-talk inbox folder - I can't see any'off top= ic'
threads,

what do you mean by off-topic?

There is a wide variety of discussions, many of which I feel free to igno= re
but because there is no further filtering I often find myself drawn in to= an
interesting discussion that improves my programming practice.

Are you being a little narrow minded?

I feel that you are unfair here, it might come as a surprise to some
but I am actually with Tony here. Kind of self protection, because in
a free list it is me who has to decide if someone is a troll, in
distress or not. Sometimes I also decide to make a joke because I
feel the list is just boring. If it were moderated I would not need to
make those decisions, in the first place and I would not see gross
language anymore neither.
Ok I agree that we will lose something, but maybe this something
should be elsewhere.
As a poster and quite nonconformist I will always step on some folk's
toe. If there were a moderator I probably could not.
But I am very much interested in arguments here, maybe I idealize what
I do not really know: A moderated list.
Thaughts?
Cheers
R.



--=20
Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilou=
s.=94
--- Confucius

 

[Robert Dober]

Oh BTW, sorry for reposting, but wouldn't there be a possibility of
eating our cake *and* having it?
I was thinking about a moderated sublist generated by some humble
"moderator" who would act as a filter?

R.

 

[Josh Cheek]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Hosts are not what group posts into threads. Mail clients are.

Sorry, I do my email online, so used the wrong terminology. I just mean that
gmail will take 50 posts about ruids, and group them all together in a
single thread, so it doesn't spam my inbox. It also filters the threads out
and sets them in their own separate area, so they never touch my inbox at
all. If your _client_ didn't do this, I can see how the list could spam
your inbox. Or maybe we're talking about something other than lots of long
posts about boids and ruids in a small number of threads? If so, I think the
people calling for moderation need to clarify specifically what their issue
is.

Ignoring the bandwidth cost because you don't see it is not totally

rational.

Is email bandwidth even an issue these days? I stream all of my music, all
day. Pretty sure one minute of streaming music exceeds an entire month's
worth of emails (assuming no attachments). Though it's not an issue if you
do it online, anyway, because the emails just sit on a server somewhere,
they wouldn't affect bandwidth unless you went to view them.