Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:63485 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 92921 invoked from network); 17 Oct 2012 08:04:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 17 Oct 2012 08:04:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kris.craig@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=kris.craig@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.215.42 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: kris.craig@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.215.42 mail-la0-f42.google.com Received: from [209.85.215.42] ([209.85.215.42:52110] helo=mail-la0-f42.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id FE/43-64689-1A66E705 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 04:04:50 -0400 Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id e6so4942191lah.29 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:04:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xQOB8QJnWckPFGHbmdefObMZACzb1xfxRaeG8u3viBU=; b=DFFKOWHGah5dbzkuSbDRtTpZEJwqApR/1Lr7RO7ErPvf2dNvv0WT1c7o4iDspENE8l jzkG/OrAPrCnfaDnYHaHIKwNy6D0AFSZ4HXouIbuchEIbz/FjW9BBcsvlEnqdJHZBOn4 celkkdehjF/uoavSWQdiWuhGSf7FsATD9AkShUvLeK+DwdRCIDzoRBvAbAftp5CAo5IO loruNgXFS6vLytYQbOBteoch8yNBSq8m/i2Qem4s5XSk5mEMSfNX36EnsViIx8Q/vHGP EtN80GLAcrBzg5tnGUDuJQoGRZl1C//baqZU0oDJ79aHeGwNZ0mGweE7ww91yHKXqMif CmmA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.108.66 with SMTP id hi2mr14941846lab.11.1350461085959; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.152.114.2 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:04:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B79AF@MBX202.domain.local> References: <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B78D3@MBX202.domain.local> <200s78tap7ler0g13orhp7mftfe1qs12v0@4ax.com> <9570D903A3BECE4092E924C2985CE485612B79AF@MBX202.domain.local> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 01:04:45 -0700 Message-ID: To: Clint Priest Cc: "internals@lists.php.net" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec54eecc84fc4dd04cc3cb968 Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternatives to mailing list? From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig) --bcaec54eecc84fc4dd04cc3cb968 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:34 PM, Clint Priest wrote: > I was thinking more along the lines of a collaborative wiki with > inline-threaded comments... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jan Ehrhardt [mailto:phpdev@ehrhardt.nl] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:00 PM > > To: internals@lists.php.net > > Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Alternatives to mailing list? > > > > Yahav Gindi Bar in php.internals (Wed, 17 Oct 2012 03:18:12 +0300): > > >I may sound old fashioned, but what about a forum? > > I agree that having a forum would have some definite benefits and should be explored further. The only caveat I'd add is that it should not be used as a replacement for the listserv. The problem with forums is that most registered users don't check it regularly. This can lead to obvious communication problems. A listserv, on the other hand, rarely suffers from this because people are far more likely to check their email inbox frequently and consistently. The convenience factor with regard to replies/etc is also apparent. That said, I do believe we have a bit of a problem with threads getting scattered due to slight changes in the subject text. The Property Accessors thread, in particular, is a bit of a nightmare to navigate. Perhaps what we need is a listserv with smarter digest options and a full, forum-like UI. For example, when you subscribe to a list, you can have the option of receiving only the first x number of messages via email, after which you'll just get a one-shot link to the forum thread for further reading. Another useful feature could be the creation of user-created temporary lists. For example, if there's an RFC thread that's extremely active but only of interest to the few people who are participating in it, they could move the discussion to a new list that would only exist for some defined period of time (preset, while active, etc). Of course, those would all have to be custom solutions most likely. But in an ideal world at least, that's how it would look I think. ---Kris --bcaec54eecc84fc4dd04cc3cb968--