Google Groups + this list

[rurpy at yahoo.com]

On 12/25/2013 09:11 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 12/24/13 8:44 PM, rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
>> On 12/23/2013 04:48 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>> On 12/22/13 11:52 PM, rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:
>[...]
>>> But it's a lot of work.
>> No, it not a "lot" of work (IMO and I use GG for every
>[...]
> Yes, that's a point I've also been trying to make: we're in agreement here.

Then you can understand why I was confused when you 
wrote that it *was* a lot of work? ;-)

>[...]
> I'm not telling people not to use Google Groups.  In fact, I've said 
> twice now in this thread that we have to accept Google Groups postings 
> as part of this list.  My point is simply that we have to take care not 
> to turn this list into a list about Google Groups, one way or the other.
> 
> Kevin started this thread by asking a question.  Chris responded without 
> helping the OP, and talked about Google Groups instead.  That's not 
> good.  Then you responded to Chris, not helping the OP, and talking 
> about Google Groups instead.  That's also not good.
> 
> I have found some of the anti-GG responses off-putting, and I wish they 
> would stop.  Words like "crap" aren't making anyone feel welcome.  In 
> this thread, I felt like your attempts to correct those responses were 
> also crossing a line.
> 
> That's why I'd personally prefer that everyone tone down the rhetoric on 
> both sides of the debate.  For the most part, it will be impossible to 
> get anyone to change how they access the list.  The best we can do is a 
> polite suggestion that Google Groups puts some people off, and that more 
> responses will likely result from using another tool.  Beyond that, it's 
> just more useless yelling at each other.

Yes, I agree.  And if it sounded like I was putting
you and Chris in the same bucket, I apologize.  It 
was partly because you did seem to be agreeing with 
him (see for example above and your other post) and 
partly because it is hard in dashing off a quick reply
to always distinguish between the personal "you" and
the general "you" (anti-GG people).

>[...]
>>> 3) Don't let's get into protracted internal debates about Google Groups.
>>>    It is for the moment at least, an unavoidable part of this list.
>>
>> That all sounds fine but seems to apply to the anti-GG
>> crowd more than me.
> 
> Well, point 3 applies to you. "Protracted debates" include views from 
> both sides.
> 
>> I would add:
>>
>> 4) If someone continues to post from GG with no attempt
>> to fix the quoting problem (which seem to be the only
>> serious problem with GG) and the problem's been pointed
>> out one or twice, just stop reading their posts if it
>> bothers you too much.
> 
> I think that's a fine point #4, I'm not sure what other option there is 
> in that case.
> 
> I'm a big believer in ignoring behavior that bothers you.  But you 
> aren't ignoring Chris, and I'm not ignoring you, so clearly we both also 
> believe in directly addressing behavior we don't like.  When to ignore, 
> and when to act?  It's not easy to decide.

I do think one needs to distinguish between the initiator 
of a contentious topic, and a responder, with preponderance
of any "blame" to be assigned falling on the former.  
(I'm excluding responding to obvious trolling here.)

I've said all along (in agreement with what you wrote), 
I've no problem with pointing out, factually, that there 
are some here who have a problem with posts from GG and 
informing them that there are alternatives.  

But going beyond that to make false (or unsupportable) 
claims, or denigrating someone's tool, which they may 
prefer for perfectly good reasons, with excessively strong 
and offensive language, or other "pushing" (to use Chris' 
term), should not be ignored.  Not just for the obvious 
ethical reasons but for the practical one that ignoring 
them is likely to drive people new to Python away from 
what should be a useful place of support.  (Not ignoring
them, resulting in these GG threads, also drives people 
away but I don't know how to fix that.  Hopefully the 
number is fewer.)

Thanks for making a number of reasonable and sensible 
points in this sometimes overheated discussion.