Re: Splitting the list

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Splitting the list

John Maindonald
I've changed the heading because this really is another thread.  I  
think it inevitable that there will, in the course of time, be other  
lists that are devoted, in some shape or form, to the concerns of  
practitioners (at all levels) who are using R.  One development I'd  
not like to see is fracture along application area lines, allowing  
those who are comfortable in coteries whose focus was somewhat  
relevant to standards of use of statistics in that area 15 or 20  
years ago to continue that way.  One of the great things about R, in  
its development to date, has been its role in exposing people from a  
variety of application area communities to statistical traditions  
different from that in which they have been nurtured. I expect it to  
have a continuing role in raising statistical analysis standards, in  
"raising the bar".

Another possibility is fracture along geographic boundaries.  This  
has both benefits (one being that its is easier within a smaller  
circle of people who are more likely to know each other for  
contributors to establish a rapport that will make the list really  
effective; also there will be notices and discussion that are of  
local interest) and drawbacks (it risks separating subscribers off  
from important discussions on the official R lists.)  On balance,  
this may be the better way to go. Indeed subscribers to ANZSTAT  
(Australian and NZ statistical list) will know that an R-downunder  
list, hosted at Auckland, is currently in test-drive mode. There  
should be enough subscribers in common between this and the official  
R lists that the south-eastern portion of Gondwana does not, at any  
time in the very near future, float off totally on its own.

There are of course other possibilities, and it may be useful to  
canvass them.

John Maindonald             email: [hidden email]
phone : +61 2 (6125)3473    fax  : +61 2(6125)5549
Mathematical Sciences Institute, Room 1194,
John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.



On 4 Jan 2006, at 10:00 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> From: Ben Fairbank <[hidden email]>
> Date: 4 January 2006 4:42:31 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [R] A comment about R:
>
>
> One implicit point in Kjetil's message is the difficulty of learning
> enough of R to make its use a natural and desired "first choice
> alternative," which I see as the point at which real progress and
> learning commence with any new language.  I agree that the long  
> learning
> curve is a serious problem, and in the past I have discussed, off  
> list,
> with one of the very senior contributors to this list the  
> possibility of
> splitting the list into sections for newcomers and for advanced users.
> He gave some very cogent reasons for not splitting, such as the
> possibility of newcomers' getting bad advice from others only slightly
> more advanced than themselves.  And yet I suspect that a newcomers'
> section would encourage the kind of mutually helpful collegiality  
> among
> newcomers that now characterizes the exchanges of the more experienced
> users on this list.  I know that I have occasionally been reluctant to
> post issues that seem too elementary or trivial to vex the others  
> on the
> list with and so have stumbled around for an hour or so seeking the
> solution to a simple problem.  Had I the counsel of others similarly
> situated progress might have been far faster.  Have other newcomers or
> occasional users had the same experience?
>
> Is it time to reconsider splitting this list into two sections?
> Certainly the volume of traffic could justify it.
>
> Ben Fairbank



        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Splitting the list

Heinz Tuechler
At 11:56 05.01.2006 +1100, John Maindonald wrote:

>I've changed the heading because this really is another thread.  I  
>think it inevitable that there will, in the course of time, be other  
>lists that are devoted, in some shape or form, to the concerns of  
>practitioners (at all levels) who are using R.  One development I'd  
>not like to see is fracture along application area lines, allowing  
>those who are comfortable in coteries whose focus was somewhat  
>relevant to standards of use of statistics in that area 15 or 20  
>years ago to continue that way.  One of the great things about R, in  
>its development to date, has been its role in exposing people from a  
>variety of application area communities to statistical traditions  
>different from that in which they have been nurtured. I expect it to  
>have a continuing role in raising statistical analysis standards, in  
>"raising the bar".
>
>Another possibility is fracture along geographic boundaries.  This  
>has both benefits (one being that its is easier within a smaller  
>circle of people who are more likely to know each other for  
>contributors to establish a rapport that will make the list really  
>effective; also there will be notices and discussion that are of  
>local interest) and drawbacks (it risks separating subscribers off  
>from important discussions on the official R lists.)  On balance,  
>this may be the better way to go. Indeed subscribers to ANZSTAT  
>(Australian and NZ statistical list) will know that an R-downunder  
>list, hosted at Auckland, is currently in test-drive mode. There  
>should be enough subscribers in common between this and the official  
>R lists that the south-eastern portion of Gondwana does not, at any  
>time in the very near future, float off totally on its own.
>
>There are of course other possibilities, and it may be useful to  
>canvass them.
>

Repeating a comment under the subject "Splitting the list":
I would considere to use flags at the beginning of the subject line, like
e.g. "BQ" for basic question. Of course, also geographic boundaries could
be considered.
This flags should be defined in the posting guide.
This way, every reader/expert can decide on a personal level to split the
list by filtering the messages accordingly.

Heinz Tuechler

>John Maindonald             email: [hidden email]
>phone : +61 2 (6125)3473    fax  : +61 2(6125)5549
>Mathematical Sciences Institute, Room 1194,
>John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
>Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
>
>
>
>On 4 Jan 2006, at 10:00 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>> From: Ben Fairbank <[hidden email]>
>> Date: 4 January 2006 4:42:31 AM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [R] A comment about R:
>>
>>
>> One implicit point in Kjetil's message is the difficulty of learning
>> enough of R to make its use a natural and desired "first choice
>> alternative," which I see as the point at which real progress and
>> learning commence with any new language.  I agree that the long  
>> learning
>> curve is a serious problem, and in the past I have discussed, off  
>> list,
>> with one of the very senior contributors to this list the  
>> possibility of
>> splitting the list into sections for newcomers and for advanced users.
>> He gave some very cogent reasons for not splitting, such as the
>> possibility of newcomers' getting bad advice from others only slightly
>> more advanced than themselves.  And yet I suspect that a newcomers'
>> section would encourage the kind of mutually helpful collegiality  
>> among
>> newcomers that now characterizes the exchanges of the more experienced
>> users on this list.  I know that I have occasionally been reluctant to
>> post issues that seem too elementary or trivial to vex the others  
>> on the
>> list with and so have stumbled around for an hour or so seeking the
>> solution to a simple problem.  Had I the counsel of others similarly
>> situated progress might have been far faster.  Have other newcomers or
>> occasional users had the same experience?
>>
>> Is it time to reconsider splitting this list into two sections?
>> Certainly the volume of traffic could justify it.
>>
>> Ben Fairbank
>
>
>
> [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
>______________________________________________
>[hidden email] mailing list
>https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
>PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>
>

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Splitting the list

Florence Combes
I don't think splitting the list is a good idea, neither according to the
level of questions (which will "kill" the "beginners list"), nor according
to geographic boundaries.

I totally agree with Heinz Tuechler's position : a (short) code on the
sublect of the e-mail seems a good ideau if people feel necessary to
organize more this list.

Florence.


On 1/5/06, Heinz Tuechler <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> At 11:56 05.01.2006 +1100, John Maindonald wrote:
> >I've changed the heading because this really is another thread.  I
> >think it inevitable that there will, in the course of time, be other
> >lists that are devoted, in some shape or form, to the concerns of
> >practitioners (at all levels) who are using R.  One development I'd
> >not like to see is fracture along application area lines, allowing
> >those who are comfortable in coteries whose focus was somewhat
> >relevant to standards of use of statistics in that area 15 or 20
> >years ago to continue that way.  One of the great things about R, in
> >its development to date, has been its role in exposing people from a
> >variety of application area communities to statistical traditions
> >different from that in which they have been nurtured. I expect it to
> >have a continuing role in raising statistical analysis standards, in
> >"raising the bar".
> >
> >Another possibility is fracture along geographic boundaries.  This
> >has both benefits (one being that its is easier within a smaller
> >circle of people who are more likely to know each other for
> >contributors to establish a rapport that will make the list really
> >effective; also there will be notices and discussion that are of
> >local interest) and drawbacks (it risks separating subscribers off
> >from important discussions on the official R lists.)  On balance,
> >this may be the better way to go. Indeed subscribers to ANZSTAT
> >(Australian and NZ statistical list) will know that an R-downunder
> >list, hosted at Auckland, is currently in test-drive mode. There
> >should be enough subscribers in common between this and the official
> >R lists that the south-eastern portion of Gondwana does not, at any
> >time in the very near future, float off totally on its own.
> >
> >There are of course other possibilities, and it may be useful to
> >canvass them.
> >
>
> Repeating a comment under the subject "Splitting the list":
> I would considere to use flags at the beginning of the subject line, like
> e.g. "BQ" for basic question. Of course, also geographic boundaries could
> be considered.
> This flags should be defined in the posting guide.
> This way, every reader/expert can decide on a personal level to split the
> list by filtering the messages accordingly.
>
> Heinz Tuechler
>
> >John Maindonald             email: [hidden email]
> >phone : +61 2 (6125)3473    fax  : +61 2(6125)5549
> >Mathematical Sciences Institute, Room 1194,
> >John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
> >Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
> >
> >
> >
> >On 4 Jan 2006, at 10:00 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> >
> >> From: Ben Fairbank <[hidden email]>
> >> Date: 4 January 2006 4:42:31 AM
> >> To: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: Re: [R] A comment about R:
> >>
> >>
> >> One implicit point in Kjetil's message is the difficulty of learning
> >> enough of R to make its use a natural and desired "first choice
> >> alternative," which I see as the point at which real progress and
> >> learning commence with any new language.  I agree that the long
> >> learning
> >> curve is a serious problem, and in the past I have discussed, off
> >> list,
> >> with one of the very senior contributors to this list the
> >> possibility of
> >> splitting the list into sections for newcomers and for advanced users.
> >> He gave some very cogent reasons for not splitting, such as the
> >> possibility of newcomers' getting bad advice from others only slightly
> >> more advanced than themselves.  And yet I suspect that a newcomers'
> >> section would encourage the kind of mutually helpful collegiality
> >> among
> >> newcomers that now characterizes the exchanges of the more experienced
> >> users on this list.  I know that I have occasionally been reluctant to
> >> post issues that seem too elementary or trivial to vex the others
> >> on the
> >> list with and so have stumbled around for an hour or so seeking the
> >> solution to a simple problem.  Had I the counsel of others similarly
> >> situated progress might have been far faster.  Have other newcomers or
> >> occasional users had the same experience?
> >>
> >> Is it time to reconsider splitting this list into two sections?
> >> Certainly the volume of traffic could justify it.
> >>
> >> Ben Fairbank
> >
> >
> >
> >       [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> >
> >______________________________________________
> >[hidden email] mailing list
> >https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> >PLEASE do read the posting guide!
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> >
> >
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide!
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Splitting the list

Kjetil Halvorsen
In reply to this post by John Maindonald
On 1/5/06, John Maindonald <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I've changed the heading because this really is another thread.  I
> think it inevitable that there will, in the course of time, be other
> lists that are devoted, in some shape or form, to the concerns of
> practitioners (at all levels) who are using R.  One development I'd
> not like to see is fracture along application area lines, allowing
> those who are comfortable in coteries whose focus was somewhat
> relevant to standards of use of statistics in that area 15 or 20
> years ago to continue that way.  One of the great things about R, in
> its development to date, has been its role in exposing people from a
> variety of application area communities to statistical traditions
> different from that in which they have been nurtured. I expect it to
> have a continuing role in raising statistical analysis standards, in
> "raising the bar".
>
> Another possibility is fracture along geographic boundaries.  This
> has both benefits (one being that its is easier within a smaller
> circle of people who are more likely to know each other for
> contributors to establish a rapport that will make the list really
> effective; also there will be notices and discussion that are of
> local interest) and drawbacks (it risks separating subscribers off
> from important discussions on the official R lists.)  On balance,
> this may be the better way to go. Indeed subscribers to ANZSTAT
> (Australian and NZ statistical list) will know that an R-downunder
> list, hosted at Auckland, is currently in test-drive mode. There
> should be enough subscribers in common between this and the official
> R lists that the south-eastern portion of Gondwana does not, at any
> time in the very near future, float off totally on its own.
>
> There are of course other possibilities, and it may be useful to
> canvass them.


Another possibi8lity, of course, is language-based lists. Any interest for
r-spanish@ ...    ?

Kjetil

John Maindonald             email: [hidden email]

> phone : +61 2 (6125)3473    fax  : +61 2(6125)5549
> Mathematical Sciences Institute, Room 1194,
> John Dedman Mathematical Sciences Building (Building 27)
> Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200.
>
>
>
> On 4 Jan 2006, at 10:00 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > From: Ben Fairbank <[hidden email]>
> > Date: 4 January 2006 4:42:31 AM
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: Re: [R] A comment about R:
> >
> >
> > One implicit point in Kjetil's message is the difficulty of learning
> > enough of R to make its use a natural and desired "first choice
> > alternative," which I see as the point at which real progress and
> > learning commence with any new language.  I agree that the long
> > learning
> > curve is a serious problem, and in the past I have discussed, off
> > list,
> > with one of the very senior contributors to this list the
> > possibility of
> > splitting the list into sections for newcomers and for advanced users.
> > He gave some very cogent reasons for not splitting, such as the
> > possibility of newcomers' getting bad advice from others only slightly
> > more advanced than themselves.  And yet I suspect that a newcomers'
> > section would encourage the kind of mutually helpful collegiality
> > among
> > newcomers that now characterizes the exchanges of the more experienced
> > users on this list.  I know that I have occasionally been reluctant to
> > post issues that seem too elementary or trivial to vex the others
> > on the
> > list with and so have stumbled around for an hour or so seeking the
> > solution to a simple problem.  Had I the counsel of others similarly
> > situated progress might have been far faster.  Have other newcomers or
> > occasional users had the same experience?
> >
> > Is it time to reconsider splitting this list into two sections?
> > Certainly the volume of traffic could justify it.
> >
> > Ben Fairbank
>
>
>
>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>
> ______________________________________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide!
> http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
>

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Splitting the list

Fernando Henrique Ferraz P. da Rosa
Kjetil Halvorsen writes:
>
> Another possibi8lity, of course, is language-based lists. Any interest for
> r-spanish@ ...    ?
>
> Kjetil

        Since you´ve mentioned the topic, anyone reading this thread
knows of currently active R language-based lists? I am a member of R_STAT,
 an R list for Portuguese speakers [1]. It would be nice to collect
links for such lists and have them on the R-project website. I tried
e-mailing r-devel regarding this on last July, but got no reply [2].


References:
[1] http://br.groups.yahoo.com/group/R_STAT/
[2] http://tolstoy.newcastle.edu.au/~rking/R/devel/05/07/1623.html



--
"Though this be randomness, yet there is structure in't."
                                           Rosa, F.H.F.P

Instituto de Matemática e Estatística
Universidade de São Paulo
Fernando Henrique Ferraz P. da Rosa
http://www.feferraz.net

______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
PLEASE do read the posting guide! http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html