Big site architecture related things

[Nicholas Clark]

On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 08:52:04AM +0000, Richard Clamp wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 10:25:44PM +0000, Lyle - CosmicPerl.com wrote:
> > Brilliant stuff Edmund, this'll make great reading for me. Thank you.

> You don't have to respond to every message you see on a mailing list.

Given that there are about 600 subscribers to this list, if everyone
responded to every message we'd reach spam proportions with two levels
of quoting. [Except, like any pyramid scheme, the list would have collapsed
by then]

> We'll happily take silence to mean that you concede the point, or that
> you're thinking, or that you're just not interested.  These aren't emails

Or that you consider that the other person is so clearly wrong (or daft)
that it's not worth sullying your own reputation with a reply stating the
obvious, or many other things.

In fact, not getting a reply to a message to a mailing list is rather common:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warnocked

[Sorry. The background to that link is rather off topic. Beer buffy pie.
I hope that makes it up. Oh yes, social tonight. At least 2 of the above
should be available: http://london.pm.org/meetings/locations/dirty_dicks.html
]

And there's always an option of replying directly to the author of a message,
which seems rather appropriate for various little one liners like "thanks".

[At least, that's my personal opinion. I don't feel the need to be seen to be
thanking people. In fact, I rather feel that if I'm consciously broadcasting
the fact, then is the "being seen" more important than the "thanking", and if
so, surely it detracts from the sincerity.]

Nicholas Clark