The Scope and Ownership of fedora-list

[Les Mikesell]

g wrote:
>
> Les Mikesell wrote:
> <snip>
>> Yes, as long as they match the project's policies.
> 
> so what is wrong with that?

Many, perhaps most, issues that users have with fedora have to do with 
the policy of hostility towards software that is not included in the 
distribution (and there is no point in discussing the reasons for this 
again).

>> Using a wiki is easy enough
> 
> if you are so bent out of shape for a wiki, why do you not write up
> one yourself and stop saying how great and wonderful it would be?

To be generally useful it has to be done by people who are legally 
permitted to talk about things like vlc.  If the fedora legal team's 
assessment is right, that precludes the US and other places that observe 
software patents.  Things like skype, nvidia, java and vmware could be 
discussed anywhere, but it all needs to be organized in one spot if you 
expect people to read it.

>>> see my reply to Antonio Olivares.
>> I think you are mistaken.
> 
> mistaken where? being that you obviously did not understand;

Mistaken in thinking that adding a wiki would not improve the mail list.

> 'buy the cow' | 'tough titty' is someone looking thru a faq or wiki.
> 
> 'milk is free' | 'milk taste swell' is not bothering and just using
> a tech support list.

Everyone likes free samples - but when there are better organized and 
more complete versions easily available some of the traffic will go 
there instead of repeating on the list.

>> Are you on any mail lists that have run some
>> time without an associated wiki, then added one?
> 
> depends on how you define 'associated'.

I mean one where a wiki was added specifically to accumulate/organize 
the wisdom from the list and users were encouraged to both read and 
contribute to it.  It has seemed successful on the ones I've observed.

-- 
    Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com