Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Miko O'Sullivan wrote: The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, ... I read this thread over the past couple of days. It's only today that, having thought about it, an objection occurred to me. I've no problem with people summarizing threads, but with this bit: The summaries will be located at http://www.idocs.com/perl6/ Why? I read the Perl 6 language list with a news-reader, which conveniently shows new articles when it's run. People subscribed to read this by e-mail get similar service. I don't want to have to remember to check a webpage on a regular basis just to see if anything new has cropped up there. Couldn't thread summaries just be sent to this list? Piers would almost certainly link to them in his weekly summaries -- he has done previously when people, most notably MikeL, have posted ad hoc summaries of particular topics. So Damian, and anybody else who doesn't read every message but still follows Piers's excellent updates, would still have thread summaries drawn to his attention and be able to read them. Smylers
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Miko O'Sullivan wrote: The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, ... I read this thread over the past couple of days. It's only today that, having thought about it, an objection occurred to me. I've no problem with people summarizing threads, but with this bit: The summaries will be located at http://www.idocs.com/perl6/ Why? I read the Perl 6 language list with a news-reader, which conveniently shows new articles when it's run. People subscribed to read this by e-mail get similar service. I don't want to have to remember to check a webpage on a regular basis just to see if anything new has cropped up there. Couldn't thread summaries just be sent to this list? Piers would almost certainly link to them in his weekly summaries -- he has done previously when people, most notably MikeL, have posted ad hoc summaries of particular topics. That's definitely a good idea. With the added advantage that, if a reader wants, the whole thread is immediately accessible for further investigation. -- Piers
AW: Language Discussion Summaries
to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc. One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be Discussion: Foo feature Want it:Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D Reject it: Person E, Person F, Person G, Person H Neutral:Person I So posters should also may try to give a clean statement on there final posts how they feal about the feature. Like I think that, but this is Vote: reject this feature. Murat
Re: AW: Language Discussion Summaries
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Murat_=DCnalan?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:21:11 +0100 to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc. One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be Discussion: Foo feature Want it: Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D Reject it: Person E, Person F, Person G, Person H Neutral: Person I I don't think we would really need a Neutral list... So posters should also may try to give a clean statement on there final posts how they feal about the feature. So, would this precise list really help the design team in making decisions. As I see it, they don't care how many of us like a particular feature; on the contrary, they're using us as idea machines. If one person comes up with an idea they like, and most people hate it, they might still use it. I think the original general consensus is fine, and a more specific list would only bog down the summaries. Like I think that, but this is Vote: reject this feature. Vote: reject this idea :) Luke
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in. The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an idea, writes a summary as a clean final presentation of the idea and its reception. Submitting a summary of your pet proposed feature is a good way to put the idea in front of the decision makers. You can show off your idea without the clutter of endless detailed commentary. That being said, you still need to present a balanced summary of the all opinions, including those you disagree with. The summaries will be located at http://www.idocs.com/perl6/ Here's how to submit a summary. Use the template at http://www.idocs.com/perl6/template.html . The HTML is set to use the stylesheets on my server, so you can edit the summary on your own machine and submit it once it's clean and ready. Email the summary to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] The summary should be written after discussion of the idea has winded down. I won't announce in the list the appearance of individual summaries, but I will occasionally post a list of new summaries. I'll be starting with three of my own favorites: vrep (http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09684.html), the monolithic Loop controls thread (http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09684.html), and named params in subroutines (http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg09551.html). -Miko Miko O'Sullivan Programmer Analyst Rescue Mission of Roanoke
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Miko O'Sullivan wrote: The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in. The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an idea, writes a summary as a clean final presentation of the idea and its reception. Hmmm... I'm looking at this and I'm wondering You suggest doing it in HTML. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it in POD, the standard documentation language for Perl? And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to re-open the RFC process?
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote: You suggest doing it in HTML. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it in POD, the standard documentation language for Perl? For now, since it's a web site, let's stick to HTML. If somebody just way prefers POD, contact me off list and we'll figure out the best way to proceed. And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to re-open the RFC process? RFC's are proposals before the comments. The summaries are, well, summaries of the comments. My main concern is that Larry, Damian, et al, are likely to have a hard time reading through all the comments in the language list (Damian isn't even in the list right now), so the summaries are a way of letting them cut to the chase on the discussion of each idea. -miko Miko O'Sullivan Programmer Analyst Rescue Mission of Roanoke
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Miko O'Sullivan wrote: And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to re-open the RFC process? RFC's are proposals before the comments. The summaries are, well, summaries of the comments. My main concern is that Larry, Damian, et al, are likely to have a hard time reading through all the comments in the language list (Damian isn't even in the list right now), so the summaries are a way of letting them cut to the chase on the discussion of each idea. You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the finalized RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs weren't written until after the idea had been discussed.
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote: You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the finalized RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs weren't written until after the idea had been discussed. Sure, I'm aware of that. However, the language list goes on (and sometimes, on and on and on). If those discussions are to be useful, somebody needs to summarize them. -miko Miko O'Sullivan Programmer Analyst Rescue Mission of Roanoke
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: Miko O'Sullivan wrote: And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to re-open the RFC process? RFC's are proposals before the comments. The summaries are, well, summaries of the comments. My main concern is that Larry, Damian, et al, are likely to have a hard time reading through all the comments in the language list (Damian isn't even in the list right now), so the summaries are a way of letting them cut to the chase on the discussion of each idea. You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the finalized RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs weren't written until after the idea had been discussed. Buddha Buck's comments aside, I think thread-summaries would be a useful thing. But probably only if we continue to have these long seemingly endless threads. Better might be someone who's there to shout LET'S WRAP IT UP PEOPLE! every now and then. And maybe that someone is Miko :-) -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Sounds like a job for a bot! (couldn't resist) -- Gregor Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/04/2003 11:38 AM Please respond to duff To: Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Miko O'Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: Language Discussion Summaries On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: Miko O'Sullivan wrote: And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to re-open the RFC process? RFC's are proposals before the comments. The summaries are, well, summaries of the comments. My main concern is that Larry, Damian, et al, are likely to have a hard time reading through all the comments in the language list (Damian isn't even in the list right now), so the summaries are a way of letting them cut to the chase on the discussion of each idea. You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the finalized RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs weren't written until after the idea had been discussed. Buddha Buck's comments aside, I think thread-summaries would be a useful thing. But probably only if we continue to have these long seemingly endless threads. Better might be someone who's there to shout LET'S WRAP IT UP PEOPLE! every now and then. And maybe that someone is Miko :-) -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Language Discussion Summaries
SUMMARY Members of the Perl6 Language list produce summaries discussions of proposed features of the Perl6 language. These summaries will improve the signal to noise ratio for Larry and his lieutenants as they try to keep up with feelings in the list. See http://www.idocs.com/perl6/ for the first example of a summary. DETAILS With Damian taking a break from the list, I've become concerned that ideas generated in this list will become buried in the volume of messages. If Larry, Damian, and other members of the core team have to read through every bottomless thread just to find out the ideas and opinions of the list members, they may never be able to keep up. Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea. Different opinions will be presented. The summaries will also attempt to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc. The summaries will also link to the original threads so that readers can peruse the raw data. Although these summaries will be necessarily subjective, the authors will attempt to be journalistically objective. The authors will be clearly identified. If the authors participated in the thread, that fact will also be identified. Finally, anybody on the list who chooses may add a note that they concur with the summary (sorta like in science journals where authors are simply people who agree). Dissenting opinions (i.e. people who think the summary is innaccurate) might also be presented, but I'd rather just incorporate those opinions into the summary and reach a consensus that the summary correctly summarizes the thread. See http://www.idocs.com/perl6/ for the home page for the summaries and one example summary. -miko Miko O'Sullivan Programmer Analyst Rescue Mission of Roanoke
AW: Language Discussion Summaries
Thats a great idea. Murat
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Miko O'Sullivan wrote: Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea. Different opinions will be presented. The summaries will also attempt to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc. The summaries will also link to the original threads so that readers can peruse the raw data. Go for it. It might not catch on, but it's worth a try. Keep in mind that Piers' summaries already cover a good part of this, but if you do it right you might make his job easier. :) In general, it should probably be the responsibility of the original poster to summarize the thread. Allison
Re: Language Discussion Summaries
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Miko O'Sullivan wrote: Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea. Different opinions will be presented. The summaries will also attempt to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc. The summaries will also link to the original threads so that readers can peruse the raw data. Go for it. It might not catch on, but it's worth a try. Keep in mind that Piers' summaries already cover a good part of this, but if you do it right you might make his job easier. :) Hell yes. Actually my summaries run on a different 'clock' to thread summaries; I'd expect thread summaries to get written after a given thread has pretty much died down (or at least started repeating itself too often) whereas my summaries get produced to a weekly timetable, which isn't necessarily the same as the threads (see the last few summaries where the same thread has appeared repeatedly) -- Piers
