What I find interesting is this: If Olin or anyone else wanted to see a change in the way the list was run, why would they not talk to the people who run the list? The email address is very clearly listed: piclist-owner@mit.edu or if you didn't know better, any long standing member must know that I, Herb, Josh and Dan are the list owners. And yet, this email, suggesting a change, was sent to piclist@mit.edu. To ALL the members of the list. Believe me, no such email was sent directly to me. I was given no opportunity to comment on this before it was blasted out to everyone. I do appreciate that it was tagged [OT] so at least people like Scott and other actual professionals who don't come up with some reason to subscribe to [OT] will not be bothered by it. But why not talk to the list owners first? Am I wrong in assuming it is just another attempt to make waves, to push people around, to grandstand? I have always said, and the FAQ CLEARLY states, that [EE] is for "topics that ... are of general interest to the EE community." The fact that sometimes, people have "interesting technical discussions" that are mis-tagged as [OT] should not be a reason to assume that these threads could not, or should not have been tagged [EE]. That is NOT a valid reason to subscribe to the [OT] channel and then post complaints about what you read on it. The PICList is NOT a democracy. The admins own the list and as long as we are the ones who keep it running, we will make the decisions about how it will be run. We always have, and will continue to be sensitive to the needs of the members and we will always seriously consider any suggestion (sent to US) for changes. And the [EE] topic is for technical discussions. If you want to discuss something of a technical nature that is not directly about PICs, SXs, or AVRs, tag it with [EE] not [OT]. If you like to complain about off topic posts, STAY OFF THE [OT] CHANNEL If you want to make a suggestion about how the list is run, contact the people who run the list. If you want to run a list, volunteer to help us or start your own. And finally, IF YOU WANT TO POST ON THIS THREAD, DO ME A FAVOR AND UNSUB AFTERWARDS. FINAL WARNING: NO MORE DISCUSSION. --- James Newton: PICList webmaster/Admin mailto:jamesnewton@piclist.com 1-619-652-0593 phone http://www.piclist.com/member/JMN-EFP-786 PIC/PICList FAQ: http://www.piclist.com . > -----Original Message----- > From: piclist-bounces@MIT.EDU > [mailto:piclist-bounces@MIT.EDU] On Behalf Of Olin Lathrop > Sent: 2005 May 31, Tue 05:27 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: [OT] Too OT? > > Russell McMahon wrote: > > Politics? - I don't think so. > > > > I enabled OT a while ago because I noticed sometimes there > were some interesting technical discussions there. Some were > a little past [EE], while others should have been [EE] and > were mistagged. This list is of course primarily about PICs, > but useful discussion of PIC will naturally include the > circuits around them and the systems and technologies they > are embedded in. I think it makes sense to have the [PIC] > and [EE] topics. > That leaves any remaining technical discussion of the broader > embedded systems and their technologies in the great unwashed > realm of [OT]. > Unfortunately [OT] is overrun with way too much stuff that > has absolutely nothing to do with PICs or embedded systems. > Is there some way to participate in the broader > PIC/embedded/technology discussions without having to wade > thru all the pointless and tedious political/religious rants? > > I can understand a thread occasionally wandering off topic, > perhaps even slightly into the political or religious on rare > occasions. That's normal human nature. Each poster only > changes the subject a little bit, so the whole thread wanders > without anyone really being much at fault. Most of the time > the thread would die on its own, or sometimes an admin might > need to step in and ask people to stop. (Hopefully this can > be done politely without shouting or saying "nn WARNING". > The presumption should be that it was not deliberate until > deomonstrated otherwise.) > > However, what irks me is when these kinds of threads are > deliberately started. The one from Russel this morning is a > case in point. Hopefully people won't take the bait and > start another lengthy pointless discussion. > But alas, I expect that the troll will be well fed once again. > > The previous case started with an inappropriate signature > line that clearly was meant to make a political or religious > statement. Most everyone here either ignored it or didn't > even notice (the latter for me). But unfortunately it takes > only one to light the spark. A lengthy deliberate message > was launched just on that issues, then it went on. And on > and on and on. > > What's the answer? Well I guess the current answer is "Too > bad, that's OT". > Is everyone comfortable with that? I think there are better > solutions. I suggest the following: > > 1 - Broaden the definition of the [EE] topic to include the > greater embedded systems the PIC is in and their technology. > I think most people who are interested in PICs and the > circuits surrounding them would also be interested in the > systems and technology surrounding the circuits. > > 2 - Failing #1, create a new topic [EMB] or [TECH] for > discussion of what #1 would have added to [EE]. > > 3 - Absolutely positively not allow discussion of religion, > or politics that has nothing to do with PICs, embedded > systems, or their technology. > Political advocacy is strictly prohibited in any case. This > goes for signature lines or any other part of a message, > since those have been shown to start such discussions. > > I'm sorry this post adds to the noise, but at least it is > about the list and it is about trying to resolve something > that is within the capability of the people here to resolve. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change > your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist