On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ross Gardler <rgard...@opendirective.com>wrote:
> On 8 August 2011 16:14, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > From my perspective, I don't see the one BIG list as bad, but it would be
> > VERY helpful if folks could label messages more succinctly and restrict
> > discussion to rather specific aspects.
>
> +1
>
> Not to mention useful subject lines (take a look at what the original
> subject was for the thread I took this from - I didn't edit the
> original and it is not truncated)
>
> > And, documenting what's been discussed is CRITICAL! It is madness to try
> to
> > sift through these messages to get to the "implementable" aspects.
>
> +1
>
> I really like the practice I see in some communities where someone
> will take long rambling threads and post a "[summary] foo bar" mail
> the the thread periodically. This is brilliant for those needing to
> catch up and also acts as a description of "impementable" conclusions
> and community consensus that is emerging.
>
> Ross
>
Great idea if we could find a volunteer! I tried to do this (only once) on
the "refactoring discussion" but I'll tell you some of these discussions are
SO lengthy it's impossible.
Maybe we'll do better (and some good soul will step up for the documentation
aspects) if we can adhere to some discussion standards.
Let's keep our fingers crossed.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"Those who love deeply never grow old;
they may die of old age, but they die young."
-- Sir Arthur Pinero
