I see another big difficulty with this mailing list: as a newcomer, it was essentially impossible for me to work back through the archives for this mailing list to understand the main issues being discussed, the main leaders and participants in the community, and the main points of view. The archive page (https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list) is intimidating. Once I got past that first impression, I still found the navigation very difficult. Those were criticisms, and I have more below. But let me be clear: I *love* OCaml. I am deeply, deeply impressed by the insight and technical excellence of the OCaml community and ecosystem. I am just hoping that by being frank about my experiences as a newcomer, I can contribute to making it even better. My general experience so far, as I try to learn OCaml and become a constructive member of the community, is that I encounter fragmented and conflicting advice on most major topics. The good news toward unification is that ocaml.org is at the top of the Google results. (At least, for me it is.) But, because I began reading Real World OCaml (a wonderful book!) before I ever did that Google search, when I did focus on ocaml.org, I was knocked off balance by how different its world of OCaml seemed to be. I’ll take a minute to be more specific: When I see ocaml.org as a beginner, I personally gravitate toward Documentation/Manual. Each part of that manual (http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/manual-ocaml/) is in conflict with Real World OCaml. The most obvious example is that “The core library” and “The standard library" in the manual are very different from "The Core Standard Library” in Real World OCaml. But many other things are also different. Even the language looks different: some capabilities like first class modules that are presented in Real World OCaml as simply part of the language (although advanced), are presented in the manual as “Language extensions”. But as I worked my way through the language extensions in the manual, I saw lots of capabilities that I don’t think are in Real World OCaml. Which brings me back to the topic at hand: mailing lists, forums, etc. When I encounter what seems like conflicting information, I start looking for the community discussions that would help me understand what consensus exists, plus the main dissenting viewpoints. Starting from ocaml.org, that takes me to the archives for this mailing list. Which I personally found unhelpful. Dean > On Jul 10, 2016, at 8:25 AM, Anthony Tavener wrote: > > I agree that email/list is better for the reasons Andreas listed... > > However, one issue (pro and con) with the mailing list is that posting has a barrier-to-entry with the knowledge that your are broadcasting to many people. This is great for avoiding trivia, and keeping the signal-to-noise ratio high... > > But it might be good to have a place for more trivial or narrow-audience topics. So people can banter about their projects or problems they encounter which they don't deem worthy of trumpeting "Here ye! Here ye!" for. Sometimes I want to waste some time reading about OCaml stuff... but reddit and email have nothing new. :) But I'm also glad these aren't choked with random crap either. A forum-like format reduces the wideband-broadcast, providing some compartmentalization, and the step for a reader to actively go looking. And if something important/interesting to the wider community flares up in such a place, *then* it can be referenced on this list, or reddit. > > I, too, would not want to fragment this tiny community. But we seem to lack a place for more voluminous banter, which might have the opposite effect: of livening things up. > > I'm not arguing for Discourse necessarily (I haven't looked into it at all), but in general: that a forum might be a useful part of community-building. Or do we have something already which I've missed? > > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 4:47 AM, SP > wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 09:21:48AM +0200, Andreas Rossberg wrote: > To paraphrase Dijkstra, IMHO email and mailing lists are an improvement over more “modern” forums in almost every way, once you get past the “flashiness” thing: > - participation without having to constantly log into yet another account (with potential tracking), > - all communication through the same tool/UI (that actually works), easy cross-communication and cross-quoting, archiving in one place, etc > [..] > - no annoying gamification, > - open, standardised and guaranteed to still be around in 5 or 10 years from now. > Also, IME, email generally encourages a slower, more considerate and more comprehensive discussion style. > > Exactly. Earlier in the discussion I expressed a similar opinion (didn't > expand as much) but it was ignored and they are plodding on. I hope your > message won't be ignored either. > > Discourse has an email gateway, but last time I looked, it wasn’t deemed very usable. > > Mailman 3 adds a web interface for those who prefer it. I think the > OCaml lists at Inria don't use Mailman though. > > It would be sad to fragment the (not so huge) OCaml community just to > hop onto the latest train in forum fashion, be it Discourse or the next > thing. I’m sure we would lose some people on the way (happened with > Rust). I’m less sure about the people we gonna win over that way. > > I concur. Again, I hope this time around this case won't be ignored. > > -- > SP > > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs >