Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: apology
From: Rui Araújo <ruka.araujo_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:39:36 +0100
On Sunday, June 21, 2009, Antony Stone
> On Sunday 21 June 2009 13:18, Rui Araújo wrote:
>> This is the rockbox mailing list which is hosted on their site and I
>> think it is strange to see peolple just whining about being told to
>> follow the guidelines.
> You replied to my posting with this, and I wasn't whining - I was pointing out
> how I thought it might be better for everyone if the rules were less strict.
> In fact, I don't see anyone whining about being told to follow the rules;
> just some people saying that the rules and their enforcement make the place
> unpleasant enough that they avoid posting, or leave altogether.
> I accept that it's entirely up to the list manager/s to decide how the list is
> run, who is allowed to post, what formats, languages, styles etc are
That's true but I don't think this is an unfriendly list because of
the rules enforcement but because of the "small" number of people that
have reacted in a very negative way once they are warned about not
following the rules.
I guess that you don't agree with and that's okay. :p
And by the way, the whining wasn't about you.
> In contrast to many other open source project mailing lists I've seen, Rockbox
> seems to put people off both contributing to the discussions, and indeed
> staying on the lists, because of the way the guidelines are enforced, and I'm
> simply trying to point out that I think this is not good for the project,
> hopefully not what the project managers want, and I believe could be improved
> by simply running the lists differently.
>> be nice, use correct English as much as possible and don't top post.
>> Is this so hard?
> On the other hand, is it so hard for the people running the project / lists to
> accept that different people have different styles of communication, and it
> may be in their own interests to accept a wider group of contributors to the
> lists, and make the place a friendlier and more encouraging environment for
> people to discuss Rockbox, instead of insisting on "following the rules" more
> strongly than any other list I've seen, to the extent that some people are
> frightened to post, and others leave in disgust.
I can't agree with you on this. I find the enforcing very normal.
>> The real problem is that people find it anoying to be remembered of
>> this rules when they shouldn't.
> Agreed. But that is human nature. As a few other people have pointed out in
> this thread, many people don't read manuals, don't read guidelines, don't
> know how to use their mail client, and don't care as much as you do about
> rules. That is simply a fact about people and the way they behave.
> I'm not condoning it; I don't approve of it; but I do accept it as the way
> people are.
True, but still people can change behauvior depending on the situation
or place. And they shlouls do it on a list too.
> I think the number of postings we see on these lists which really do deserve
> either to be ignored or told "no, we don't port to new players on request"
> etc. is very small, and I simply believe it would be better to accept that
> people have varied ways of communicating, and allow them to do so on these
> lists, than to restrict the group of people who discuss Rockbox to the
> apparently rather small minority who conform to the posting requirements.
I think the minority is the one that doesn't follow the rules.
>> There are guidelines. They should be followed. Period. No need to cry
>> now , ok? :D
> I'm merely suggesting that guidelines could be changed, if that is for the
> benefit of more people than keeping them the way they are.
> Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but
> rather when there is nothing left to take away.
> - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
> Please reply to the list;
> please don't CC me.
> Unsubscribe: http://cool.haxx.se/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rockbox
> FAQ: http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/GeneralFAQ
> Etiquette: http://www.rockbox.org/mail/etiquette.html
Received on 2009-06-21