Dave Laribee

Dave,

I'm not sure I get the peer review channel.  My orthodoxy sensors are going off.

++Alan

Looks good. I like it.

Hey Dave, I like the idea of breaking the list up, partially because there is so much traffic that it is hard to keep up.  Also, the list was specific to the Alt.NET Conference, and the list has grown beyond that initial audience.

That said, i'm not sure what to think of Q&A vs. Peer Review.  To me, they should be the same list.  Honest and helpful criticism should be encouraged, and negative criticism should be discouraged.  It seems like you are setting up the Peer Review list as the place where folks can go to be negative without repercussion.

I'd rather see the following two lists on Google instead of Yahoo.

altnet-leadership - Organizers of conferences, camps, user groups, etc are encouraged to share ideas here.

altnet-talk - Discuss all things Alt.NET. The list motto is don't be an asshole.  :)

@Dave The Ruby community has a saying, "Matz is nice so we are nice".  I've seen this references on the ruby-talk mailing list, and it usually helps keep things civil.  Its part of the culture.  I'd love to see an analog in the Alt.NET community.

I think it could be very easy to introduce norms for how the Alt.NET list behaves.  For instance, if I had some code I wanted reviewed, I'd set my subject to "Review Wanted: Class to Database Mapping" and the body of my email would contain the code I'd written that is specific to my enterprise and their strange/non-standard use of an 8-byte (64-bit) hexadecimal primary key (don't ask).  The code would either be inline (eh) or on a URL that supported line numbering and colored formatting (preferred).  That thread would be a contained discussion about that code.  if a splinter discussion broke off of that to discuss the relative merits of ORM in general, you would create a separate thread with the subject "Opinion: ORMs suck!".  If the splinter discussion persists on the original thread, members would encourage them to create the new thread.

My point is, you are in the position to define how the list _should_ behave, and good folks of the community will help enforce that behavior as long as those guidelines are easy to find and easy to follow.  I'd rather have one list that is well behaved with a wide variety of discussions rather than separate lists.

(Also, I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with how the current list behaves, other than it wasn't set up for the purpose it is fulfilling now.)

Having just read the thread on altnetconf, I will say that I can also see some benefit to having an "altnet-tech" list specific for technology discussions (and not just peer reviews).  That said, I would rather have those discussion as part of a well behaved "altnet-talk" list.

I have been following the ALT.NET group for a while now. The tech talk is great, although a lot of the