The Messages Area on the UT is a fine place to ask for help. It’s also a meeting place where developers have more fundamental discussions and keep things relaxed with an occasional joke. I like that all. However, IMO, the quality of the discussions is too often somewhat poor. I can think of several factors that may account for that poor quality. Before stating those negative factors, I’d like to present this list:

1)
A quality discussion requires that those involved have commitment. Without commitment people will not give serious attention by will.

2)
A quality discussion requires that those involved have enough time. Without available time, even if there’s enough commitment, people will not be able to give serious attention.

3)
It’s necessary that people perceive that the discussion indeed is a quality discussion. The perception of the level of quality is one of the factors that influences people’s decision to commit and participate.

4)
A quality discussion requires the adherence to a certain etiquette. Without a certain set of rules a discussion is at risk of bleeding to death or becoming a personal vendetta.

5)
The possibilities in the Message Area have impact on the quality of the discussion. Without a functionally adequate Message Area the participants have more difficulty in reacting and evaluating.

6)
A quality discussion requires a certain expert level of those involved. Too large differences between the expert levels of participants might give tensions. If the participants are lower experts, then high-expert observers (who don’t participate) might think of the discussions as being of poor quality, but the participants will think of them as being of fine quality.


Here’s a personal experience: I’m not always on the UT, but if I log in and read the messages, I regularly feel urged to reply, not only when I think I know the answer to a question, but also when I question the answer or part of the answer that was given by someone else. I think I’m not the only one who reacts in this way. Very often a practical question in a non-chatter area is the offset of a somewhat fundamental discussion. Only some of them are started by me. The thing that strikes me is that the quality of these discussions too often shrinks a lot, as soon as people start making only one or so remark, to the 'master piece' of someone else. Or they do not reply at all. Having experienced and seen this all some times now, I’m at a point where I say to myself: “Peter, stop, it’s not worth the investment. Your time is too precious to be spent on discussions that too often turn out to become of poor quality”.

Is there still hope for me? Well, what I’d appreciate is this:
I propose that we ask Michel Fournier to create a new category: Holy Wars. The crux of that category is that people know that it’s meant for fundamental discussions (requirement 3), that those who decide to participate in a thread know that commitment and time are expected (requirements 1 and 2), that this category has its own etiquette (requirement 4) and that ideally the category has certain unique possibilities (requirement 5).

Other thoughts about the details come to mind, but first I’d like to know what you all think of the basic idea of a new category.