Graham Barr wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 08:51:36PM +0900, Simon Cozens wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 07:51:07AM -0400, Michael G Schwern wrote: > > > Ben's original suggestion was that all posts to p6p have mandatory > > > magical tags in the subject field which say what topic you're posting > > > about. p6p can simply look at the tag and route a copy of the message > > > to the appropriate list. > > > > Okay, that would work. > > I don't think so. > > You a assuming that everyone who will ever post to p6p will know to add > the keyword and also what keywords there are. This simply will never be true. They'll find out when their message bounces, now won't they? <evil grin> Seriously, this kind of system has worked well voluntarily for several newsgroups, and if it were mandatory for perl6 lists, then anyone who can find out what they need to do to subscribe to those lists should also be able to find out from the same source what they need to do to post to those lists. (Now I'm awaiting fearfully the possibility that someone will tell me I've broken a rule for posting to the list, as I only subscribed yesterday and may have missed something. :) When you come right down to it, I really think that anyone who attempts to follow *all* the Perl6 discussions is just asking for trouble and an early trip to the funny farm. I just think there will be too much to keep up with. Brooks' original _Mythical Man Month_ recommended that every detail of a project be made known to all developers, but he recanted that in the more recent edition, having seen the value of information hiding. People don't really need to know everything; just the internals of their own task and its interfaces with the rest of the project. (Larry Wall and a few other notables excepted, of course.) On the other hand, a conglomerated list might be a good place for someone wanting to get involved in Perl6 development but not quite sure where to start. J. David BlackstoneThread Previous | Thread Next