Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:01:54PM +0200, Paul Johnson wrote: > Simon Wistow said: > > > Where would we be if we'd not bothered writing some Matt's Scripts > > replacments on the assumption that nobody would pick them up. Or > > written an extensible MLM in Perl on the assumption that despite having > > whinged about it for ages nobody would actually care. > > > Oooh, did I miss something? Has someone (plural?) written (present > tense?) a new MLM. Yes indeedy. Plural, present (and mostly past), and new: http://siesta.sourceforge.net/ I announced in the week before YAPC::Europe here, so maybe people just didn't pick up on it. It needs a few things pulling together for its first release, but it's all self hosting and stuff. -- Richard Clamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
* David Cantrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:58:41PM +0100, Lusercop wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:49:27PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > > * Must be a poster to the list > > > * Or a regular on IRC > > > * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. > > OK, how do you judge any of these? > > Matthew, let me introduce you to this thing I found called "common sense". > Please don't be using common sense it will spoil all the best arguments on the list and on IRC. If you use this common sense thing, the next thing you know, people will be saying things like "yes, you prefer foo and i prefer bar, thats like a difference of opinion and we can live with that and not rant at each other for 3 hours on IRC". Never again will we have the pointless arguments that have defined #london.pm for the last 2 years, people will just agree that fox hunting is stupid barbarism as opposed to adopting stances on the argument based on their stances in the fastseduction argument a few minutes previously. It will be a terrible future, full of progress and a severe lack of dancing monkeys arguing about buckets. ;-) Greg p.s. I apologise for all posts over the next few days, as I shall be OD'ing on cough medicine. -- Greg McCarroll http://www.mccarroll.org.uk/~gem/ jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:58:41PM +0100, Lusercop wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:49:27PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > * Must be a poster to the list > > * Or a regular on IRC > > * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. > OK, how do you judge any of these? Matthew, let me introduce you to this thing I found called "common sense". -- David Cantrell|Reprobate|http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david attractivating: inducing the quality of being attractive, especially to members of the appropriate sex. -- Henrik Levkowetz
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:53:54PM +0100, Dean Wilson wrote: > I haven't been to an official meeting in the best part of twelve months and > i had to miss YAPC. Does that make me a "freebie-seeking hanger on"? If it > does and the criteria for getting something on the site is going to the pub > then fine but if it doesn't then you have to have a solid set of rules and > they have to be the same for everyone ... No you don't, you need common sense. -- Grand Inquisitor Reverend David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david " We must get users past their misunderstandings of uptime. A reboot doesn't mean that anything broke, there is no hardware or software corrective action taken, so there wasn't any real downtime. " -- overheard in an MS strategy meeting
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 12:12:03PM +0100, Simon Batistoni wrote: > On 11/10/02 10:16 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > > Which made me thing - is there a section on "books we wrote" on the > > london.pm site to give blatant free advertising plugs? [No] > > > > Would it be a good idea? Not sure. Because then we'd have everyone > > (even Matt Wright?) subscribing to london.pm just to get their link. > > And not all books are equal. > It could be a long, dark, slippery slope, but I think that it's > possible to distinguish between "involved" perl mongers such as Dave, > and "freebie-seeking hangers on", who don't even come to a > meeting. There *is* a problem of perceived cliquishness, of course, > but... I dunno. It seems like a pretty easy decision to make. -- David Cantrell | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david I hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year ... -- Linus Torvalds, in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
From: "Simon Batistoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I think personal bios still have a problem, in that there has to be > some criteria for "bio-worthiness", which doesn't wind up looking > elitist. I have a sinking feeling that the two things are > incompatible, and that nice idea as it is, it really wouldn't work in > practice. We have bios on the Birmingham.pm site, which was mainly to advertise who we are, and proved useful for some new recruits to spot us in the pub. The main aim for them was to give a bit of background to the book reviewers. It still needs work, but everyone seems happy with it ... at least there has been no complaints so far. Barbie.
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
Simon Wistow said: > Where would we be if we'd not bothered writing some Matt's Scripts > replacments on the assumption that nobody would pick them up. Or > written an extensible MLM in Perl on the assumption that despite having > whinged about it for ages nobody would actually care. Oooh, did I miss something? Has someone (plural?) written (present tense?) a new MLM. I have an idea that came to me in the shower one morning, but you probably didn't want to know that. Some of the mailing lists I'm on break threading by not passing through the appropriate headers. I had considered writing something to go through my mailboxes and attenpt to put the threading back, based on subjects, dates and content. It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to get most of the way there. Then I thought about the mailing lists that do keep threading, but some of the mail clients people use to send to the list don't. Maybe the mailing list software could attempt to restore the threading. Then I wondered what the world would be like if Microsoft had closed its doors in the early eighties. How much time would have been saved by people not staring at a BSOD, waiting for a reboot and then typing in their XL figures again, or playing solitaire? And would they have done anything useful with it? Would the world of computng have advanced further, or might Microsoft have been replaced with something even worse? Then I thought I really should go to work ... -- Paul Johnson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pjcj.net
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:16:56PM +0100, Simon Wistow wrote: > Of course sometimes I think exactly the opposite but if yer optomistic > then you get a lot more done. Hear hear. Just post to webmaster and then have them check it in. Webmaster might like to provide a template (in the general sense) to fill in or have as an overall guide, and to help them integrate it into the site. If someone then objects to the content, have them review it. Simple. No need for scripts and endless chatter. Just fscking do it. Paul -- Paul Makepeace ... http://paulm.com/ "What is a lollipop with out the good ship? It is silence, silence, silence." -- http://paulm.com/toys/surrealism/
RE: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Friday, October 11, 2002 4:17 PM, Simon Wistow [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:02:21PM +0100, Ivor Williams said: > > Maybe introduce some kind of XP style voting system, like on Perlmonks or > > Everything2. > > Alternatively we could just do it and then, if anybody complains, deal > with it then rather than our current modus operandi of burning our > bridges before we come to them (I know that doesn't actually make sense > but I just liked the imagery) > [snip] > > Carpe the tuits! If you script it THEY WILL COME! They drew first blood! > I'll be back! Friends, Romans, Perl Mongers! etc etc ad infinitum ad > nauseam. > > Having said that I'm currently in no position to write the code to back > my polemic up so I should probably shut up. > Perhaps we don't need to write code. It may just be a case of downloading and installing the Everything Engine. Anybody got a machine on which to host it?
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Lusercop wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:49:27PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote: > > * Must be a poster to the list > > * Or a regular on IRC > > * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. > > OK, how do you judge any of these? Why, subjectively of course ! Seriously, the list will be self selecting. Anyone mad enough to want to be associated with this bunch of [insert humourously derogatory comments here] is welcome to pitch up a biog. Should there be any dispute, well hey, we have a $leader. Isn't that one of the things they're for ? Simon. Feeling quite jolly this afternoon. -- "Late as in the late Dent Arthur Dent. It's a sort of threat you see. I've never been terribly good at them myself but I've been told they can be terribly effective"
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 04:02:21PM +0100, Ivor Williams said: > Maybe introduce some kind of XP style voting system, like on Perlmonks or > Everything2. Alternatively we could just do it and then, if anybody complains, deal with it then rather than our current modus operandi of burning our bridges before we come to them (I know that doesn't actually make sense but I just liked the imagery) Sometimes I think we give people less credit than is due to them. Of course sometimes I think exactly the opposite but if yer optomistic then you get a lot more done. Where would we be if we'd not bothered writing some Matt's Scripts replacments on the assumption that nobody would pick them up. Or written an extensible MLM in Perl on the assumption that despite having whinged about it for ages nobody would actually care. Carpe the tuits! If you script it THEY WILL COME! They drew first blood! I'll be back! Friends, Romans, Perl Mongers! etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseam. Having said that I'm currently in no position to write the code to back my polemic up so I should probably shut up.
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:49:27PM +0100, Simon Wilcox said: > My criteria for getting on it would probably be similar to the rules for > voting in last years leadership contest, that is: > > * Must be a poster to the list > * Or a regular on IRC > * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. > > The only other criteria would be that if *you* want to be on the page > *you* have to write your entry in whatever format $webmaster tells you to > write it in. Sounds sensible to me. Just my 0.02 $currency
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:58:41PM +0100, Lusercop wrote: >On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:49:27PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote: >> * Must be a poster to the list >> * Or a regular on IRC >> * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. >OK, how do you judge any of these? How often does one have to post in order >to be "a poster on the list". How much time spent whiling away one's life on >IRC (OK, so I do it a bit too), and in particular, whiling away one's life >on #london.pm. The simpler version is to substitute leadership for rules: "Somebody whom most people on the mailing list know about", and the leader decides in case of dispute. Roger
RE: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Friday, October 11, 2002 3:49 PM, Simon Wilcox [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Simon Batistoni wrote: > > > I think personal bios still have a problem, in that there has to be > > some criteria for "bio-worthiness", which doesn't wind up looking > > elitist. I have a sinking feeling that the two things are > > incompatible, and that nice idea as it is, it really wouldn't work in > > practice. > > Funnily enough, one of the things I liked about the "handwriting" site[1] > was the biog page[2][3]. > > My criteria for getting on it would probably be similar to the rules for > voting in last years leadership contest, that is: > > * Must be a poster to the list > * Or a regular on IRC > * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. > Maybe introduce some kind of XP style voting system, like on Perlmonks or Everything2. Just a thought, Ivor.
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 03:49:27PM +0100, Simon Wilcox wrote: > * Must be a poster to the list > * Or a regular on IRC > * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. OK, how do you judge any of these? How often does one have to post in order to be "a poster on the list". How much time spent whiling away one's life on IRC (OK, so I do it a bit too), and in particular, whiling away one's life on #london.pm. Spanner in the works? I doubt it. -- Lusercop.net - LARTing Lusers everywhere since 2002
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Simon Batistoni wrote: > I think personal bios still have a problem, in that there has to be > some criteria for "bio-worthiness", which doesn't wind up looking > elitist. I have a sinking feeling that the two things are > incompatible, and that nice idea as it is, it really wouldn't work in > practice. Funnily enough, one of the things I liked about the "handwriting" site[1] was the biog page[2][3]. My criteria for getting on it would probably be similar to the rules for voting in last years leadership contest, that is: * Must be a poster to the list * Or a regular on IRC * Or a regular at the pub and/or technical meets. The only other criteria would be that if *you* want to be on the page *you* have to write your entry in whatever format $webmaster tells you to write it in. I would think that, much like the book plugging, the list of people that'll be interested in associating themselves with london.pm will be pretty much self-selecting :) My £0.02. Simon. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20010516020227/http://london.pm.org/ [2] http://web.archive.org/web/20010613143417/london.pm.org/WhoWeAre.html [3] I feel certain it had photos once but I can't find that edition.
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 02:09:37PM +0100, Simon Batistoni wrote: > On 11/10/02 12:53 +0100, Dean Wilson wrote: > > I haven't been to an official meeting in the best part of twelve months and > > i had to miss YAPC. Does that make me a "freebie-seeking hanger on"? If it > > does and the criteria for getting something on the site is going to the pub > > then fine but if it doesn't then you have to have a solid set of rules and > > they have to be the same for everyone, if we start 'he's my friend so he > > can go on the site' then we are going to look like elitests. > > > > I dislike the idea of having a two tier membership. > > I feel exactly the same (although I do manage to make it to the pub > because it always seems to be 2 streets from my office), and I was > trying to juggle that feeling with the feeling that it would be nice > to have such a feature on the site. It appears I may have dropped my > balls. *cough* I guess the simpler thing is only to link from "members" (if we did it) o the reviews of any book (which we would have to have before we'd accept making a link) Then if "we" don't like a book, we can slag it off in the review. That makes the links to members' books page objective, and decouples it from the subjective content (whether we believe the book to be good) I think I'm safe in saying "we" here - if someone does a review that enough other people disagree with, then I would expect someone else to come and write the contradictory review. > I think personal bios still have a problem, in that there has to be > some criteria for "bio-worthiness", which doesn't wind up looking > elitist. I have a sinking feeling that the two things are > incompatible, and that nice idea as it is, it really wouldn't work in > practice. I don't think I can see a way round this, hence I suspect doing bios won't be practical. Nicholas Clark
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Simon Batistoni wrote: > I think personal bios still have a problem, in that there has to be > some criteria for "bio-worthiness", which doesn't wind up looking > elitist. I have a sinking feeling that the two things are > incompatible, and that nice idea as it is, it really wouldn't work in > practice. I don't see how it could work for bios, but for books, what's to stop us letting people add short reviews/opinions under it. If you question the sexual orientation of strict, for example, would you be in a hurry to get your book on the list, when (a) most of the people reading the site will disagree, and will be able to air their views and (b) google reads the site quite regularly, so someone looking for details about your book will bring up lots of peoples sound arguments for why it's not worth the paper it's printed on. the hatter
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On 11/10/02 12:53 +0100, Dean Wilson wrote: > I haven't been to an official meeting in the best part of twelve months and > i had to miss YAPC. Does that make me a "freebie-seeking hanger on"? If it > does and the criteria for getting something on the site is going to the pub > then fine but if it doesn't then you have to have a solid set of rules and > they have to be the same for everyone, if we start 'he's my friend so he > can go on the site' then we are going to look like elitests. > > I dislike the idea of having a two tier membership. I feel exactly the same (although I do manage to make it to the pub because it always seems to be 2 streets from my office), and I was trying to juggle that feeling with the feeling that it would be nice to have such a feature on the site. It appears I may have dropped my balls. *cough* > If you are going to do personal bios on the site put it in there if you > consider it something you want mentioned, having a seperate section just > seems out of place. I think personal bios still have a problem, in that there has to be some criteria for "bio-worthiness", which doesn't wind up looking elitist. I have a sinking feeling that the two things are incompatible, and that nice idea as it is, it really wouldn't work in practice.
Re: Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
- Original Message - From: "Simon Batistoni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > It could be a long, dark, slippery slope, but I think that it's > possible to distinguish between "involved" perl mongers such as Dave, > and "freebie-seeking hangers on", who don't even come to a meeting. > There *is* a problem of perceived cliquishness, of course, but... I dunno. I haven't been to an official meeting in the best part of twelve months and i had to miss YAPC. Does that make me a "freebie-seeking hanger on"? If it does and the criteria for getting something on the site is going to the pub then fine but if it doesn't then you have to have a solid set of rules and they have to be the same for everyone, if we start 'he's my friend so he can go on the site' then we are going to look like elitests. I dislike the idea of having a two tier membership. > It would be a nice section of the site to have If you are going to do personal bios on the site put it in there if you consider it something you want mentioned, having a seperate section just seems out of place. Dean -- Profanity is the one language all programmers understand --- Anon
Books on london.pm.org (was Re: applying patterns)
On 11/10/02 10:16 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote: > Which made me thing - is there a section on "books we wrote" on the > london.pm site to give blatant free advertising plugs? [No] > > Would it be a good idea? Not sure. Because then we'd have everyone > (even Matt Wright?) subscribing to london.pm just to get their link. > And not all books are equal. I don't think we'd want to end up with > the same page promoting Data munging with perl, Object oriented perl, > Learning perl and some masterpiece by someone allergic to use strict; It could be a long, dark, slippery slope, but I think that it's possible to distinguish between "involved" perl mongers such as Dave, and "freebie-seeking hangers on", who don't even come to a meeting. There *is* a problem of perceived cliquishness, of course, but... I dunno. It would be a nice section of the site to have, and avoiding doing it because we'll be obliged to include every screed turned out by every mailing list member seems... like a very odd version of political correctness. Mileages may vary.
