Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de wrote:
>
>> Martin Jambon <martin.jambon@ens-lyon.org> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, ls-ocaml-developer-2006@m-e-leypold.de wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 2) Skipping all the unnecessary "language geekiness" stuff
>>>>
>>>> And that cannot be done by hand so that we have to split the community?
>>>
>>> Having to do things by hand is never really a good sign.
>>
>> Really? But how will the relevant mail be distributed to the
>> relevant lists? Aren't we deciding by hand to which list the mail goes
>> and isn't this prone to errors (i.e. "language geekiness" turning up
>> at your list and pedestrian mail turning up at caml-list)? And if the
>> splitting of mail by topics ("by hand") doesn't work well enough,
>> we'll all have to subscribe to two lists. How annoying.
>
> There are 1000 readers per message but only one author. To me it seems
> fair that the author of a message spends approximately 1000 times more
> effort than it takes to read and delete the message.

This is all nice and very moral, but: According to which criteria has
the writer to select the list? No language geekiness at your list,
that much is clear :-], but he/she can as well post almost anything to
caml-list according to the charter of caml-list. This doesn't bode
well for a distinctive sorting ...

>> And fragmentation hurts especially the newcomers who will often only
>> find and search one archive/list and then go away disapppointed (or
>> enraged).
>
> People search the whole web with their favorite search engine, don't they?

More Googleization at work. I dislike it. The internet is not only the
web. Which brings me to another point against Google groups: There is
no downloadable archive of messages (say in mbox format) which one can
download and index/search locally by the program of ones
choice. Basically all messages (as a whole) are locked into Google for
the rest of time and every time one wants to find anything, one also
furthers Googles business. At the long run a dear price to pay for a
"free service".

>> And: Will the CAML weekly news editor also read you list?
>
> I am not asking that from him, but yes he kindly proposed to do
> so. Thanks again Alan!

Good. IMHO that rather upgrades the status of the new list.

Regards -- Markus