Chen Xiao Fan wrote:

>>I use [OT][WOT] for more questionable stuff.
>>Some appreciate this, some don't.
> 
> The problem with [WOT] is that it is too [OT]. 

But you can filter on it and don't even get to read the messages Russell
marks as WOT -- if that is what you want. So if someone thinks WOT is too
OT, just filter it out. Isn't that a solution, akin to grabbing another
blanket instead of complaining that the night is too cold?


> But my opinion is still similar to Olin's that even [OT] should be
> limited. 

It actually /is/ limited :)  But if you mean more restricted than it is, I
disagree. I like it just the way it is.


>> The otherwise admirable admin is strangely deaf to requests for a
>> slightly rearranged or extended tag system :-)
> 
> PIClist is so diversified and international that it seems to be the best
> option to keep situation as it is.

I agree completely with Xiaofan. I've worked with smaller and better
defined groups, and keeping such things simple is a key for their success.
The only problem some people seem to have is that some people mark EE stuff
with OT. But this is not a problem of too few tags; it only would get worse
with more tags. Get OT and bite the bullet that some of the stuff is
actually OT, or don't get it and bite the bullet that some people mark EE
stuff as OT... nothing's perfect. Or get OT and filter Russell's and my OT
messages out -- there are many options one can shape the received messages
to one's own liking without having to rely on others to do what one person
wants.


> The solution is to use a proper tool to read PIClist.

Exactly! And to change tags and subjects as appropriate as a thread's focus
changes, as this helps with using the proper tools properly.

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist