• Brad Beveridge (15/15) Apr 20 2005 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across
• Matthew (18/33) Apr 20 2005 I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty
• Brad Beveridge (15/32) Apr 20 2005 OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
• Matthew (3/35) Apr 20 2005 I've taken a first stab. Let's see what happens. :-)
• Regan Heath (27/51) Apr 20 2005 Woohoo! I made the list!
• TechnoZeus (3/55) Apr 20 2005 This also would convert readily to a subject tag as "[proposal]" the adv...
• Georg Wrede (6/19) Apr 20 2005 A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly
• TechnoZeus (4/23) Apr 20 2005 Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of t...
• Regan Heath (6/41) Apr 20 2005 A summary should contain no "opinion" at all, but rather be impartial an...
• TechnoZeus (4/49) Apr 20 2005 Ideally, yes... but in reality it never happens. I would "ask" to anyon...
• TechnoZeus (22/37) Apr 20 2005 Great idea, in my opinion, but much easier said than elegantly done.
• James McComb (7/7) Apr 20 2005
• TechnoZeus (8/15) Apr 21 2005 Hahaha. Cute.

Brad Beveridge <brad somewhere.net> writes:

There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across 
interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the 
discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
 From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be 
nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided 
that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter 
Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to 
"Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a 
response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type 
of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce 
the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the 
feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the 
attention that they deserve.

Cheers
Brad

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"Brad Beveridge" <brad somewhere.net> wrote in message 
news:d46one$1htf$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way 
 across interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the 
 grounds that the discussion could go no further without input from 
 Walter.
 From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would 
 be nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have 
 decided that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone 
 calls a Walter Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the 
 title changed to "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we 
 would eagerly await a response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, 
 and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted 
 ourselves.  Would this reduce the number of posts that Walter 
 needs to pay attention to?

I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty 
nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke 
this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".

Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick 
in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not 
be abused.

Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. 
We need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating 
discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing 
a body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not 
abusing it).

  I get the feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG 
 don't get the attention that they deserve.

I'm sure you're right.


I've considered writing formal-ish language proposals for a good 
while, but I just don't have enough faith that it'll be worth my 
effort to do so. I keep meaning to test the water with a little one, 
but that old time's a factor. ;/

Brad Beveridge <brad somewhere.net> writes:

 I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty 
 nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke 
 this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
 
 Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick 
 in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not 
 be abused.
 
 Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. 
 We need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating 
 discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing 
 a body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not 
 abusing it).

OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones able 
to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some number 
(three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from the top of 
my head, should be
Matthew
Georg Wrede
Ben Hinkle
Regan Heath
Anders
Derek

If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG 
the WWI won't be called.

 I've considered writing formal-ish language proposals for a good 
 while, but I just don't have enough faith that it'll be worth my 
 effort to do so. I keep meaning to test the water with a little one, 
 but that old time's a factor. ;/

That is also a good idea - but will Walter notice it?

Brad

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

"Brad Beveridge" <brad somewhere.net> wrote in message 
news:d46qm2$1jma$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the 
 rusty nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and 
 only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted 
 ourselves".

 Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can 
 stick in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI 
 would not be abused.

 Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many 
 times. We need groups of people - to take responsibility for 
 moderating discussions; for collaborating in language changes; 
 for representing a body that actually gets Walter's attention 
 (and keeps it by not abusing it).

 OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
 I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones 
 able to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some 
 number (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from 
 the top of my head, should be
 Matthew
 Georg Wrede
 Ben Hinkle
 Regan Heath
 Anders
 Derek

 If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the 
 NG the WWI won't be called.

 I've considered writing formal-ish language proposals for a good 
 while, but I just don't have enough faith that it'll be worth my 
 effort to do so. I keep meaning to test the water with a little 
 one, but that old time's a factor. ;/

 That is also a good idea - but will Walter notice it?

I've taken a first stab. Let's see what happens. :-)

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:04:54 +1200, Brad Beveridge <brad somewhere.net>  
wrote:
 I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty  
 nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke  
 this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
  Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick  
 in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be  
 abused.
  Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We  
 need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating  
 discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a  
 body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing  
 it).

 OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
 I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones able  
 to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some number  
 (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from the top of  
 my head, should be
 Matthew
 Georg Wrede
 Ben Hinkle
 Regan Heath
 Anders
 Derek

 If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG  
 the WWI won't be called.

Woohoo! I made the list!

Seriously though, I can think of a number of other people (not on this  
list) who appear to me to be quite capable of doing a good summary of  
issues in their own area of experience.

I am reminded of Norbert's proposal which he posted to the NG, and to  
Walter directly? That seemed to work. However, as has been mentioned we  
don't want everyone doing that(*). The method that was used then, tho  
informally, was something like...

An N stage process.

Stage 0: the thread/discussion here on the NG.

Stage 1: If/when it reaches the Walter input stage we have a quick vote  
and a person (or even 2 working together via email) is/are chosen to  
attempt to write an impartial objective proposal. They post the proposal  
back to the group with a subject of "REVIEW-1: <subject>" and a link to  
the original thread.

Anyone may then comment on the proposal itself. Including Walter.  
Clarifying any miss-representation as they see it, the original author  
makes changes and re-posts, "REVIEW-2: <subject>".

Repeat, until no further comments/complaints are made.

Last stage, the proposal is posted as "PROPOSAL: <subject>".

Regan

(*) Clarification, I am not implying anyone is less capable, but rather  
newcomers have less knowledge of D's particular methods, goals, quirks,  
hot-topics, etc and we want to avoid the same thing being posted all over  
again.

"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:

This also would convert readily to a subject tag as "[proposal]" the advantages
of which include that it can be searched without hitting occurances of the word
being used other than as a tag, and that where appropraite, multiple tags can
be used as subject keywords.

TZ

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
news:opspj3hhd023k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz...
 On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:04:54 +1200, Brad Beveridge <brad somewhere.net>
 wrote:
 I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty
 nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke
 this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
  Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick
 in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be
 abused.
  Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We
 need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating
 discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a
 body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing
 it).

 OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
 I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones able
 to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some number
 (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from the top of
 my head, should be
 Matthew
 Georg Wrede
 Ben Hinkle
 Regan Heath
 Anders
 Derek

 If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG
 the WWI won't be called.

 Woohoo! I made the list!

 Seriously though, I can think of a number of other people (not on this
 list) who appear to me to be quite capable of doing a good summary of
 issues in their own area of experience.

 I am reminded of Norbert's proposal which he posted to the NG, and to
 Walter directly? That seemed to work. However, as has been mentioned we
 don't want everyone doing that(*). The method that was used then, tho
 informally, was something like...

 An N stage process.

 Stage 0: the thread/discussion here on the NG.

 Stage 1: If/when it reaches the Walter input stage we have a quick vote
 and a person (or even 2 working together via email) is/are chosen to
 attempt to write an impartial objective proposal. They post the proposal
 back to the group with a subject of "REVIEW-1: <subject>" and a link to
 the original thread.

 Anyone may then comment on the proposal itself. Including Walter.
 Clarifying any miss-representation as they see it, the original author
 makes changes and re-posts, "REVIEW-2: <subject>".

 Repeat, until no further comments/complaints are made.

 Last stage, the proposal is posted as "PROPOSAL: <subject>".

 Regan

 (*) Clarification, I am not implying anyone is less capable, but rather
 newcomers have less knowledge of D's particular methods, goals, quirks,
 hot-topics, etc and we want to avoid the same thing being posted all over
 again.

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

Brad Beveridge wrote:
 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across 
 interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the 
 discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be 
 nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided 
 that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter 
 Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to 
 "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a 
 response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type 
 of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce 
 the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the 
 feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the 
 attention that they deserve.

A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly 
before "callin on Walter".

Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly 
respected" people to do the summaries.

Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".

"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:

Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of this
thread.  Except that anyone could do a summary, and simply include [summary] in
the subject, so that it can be searched for.

The fact that anyone can do it, means you aren't restricted to one person's
opinion... and it wouldn't take long for Walter, or anyone else, to learn which
people's summaries they get the most useful information out of.

TZ

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message
news:4266EDE0.2020404 nospam.org...
 Brad Beveridge wrote:
 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across
 interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the
 discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
 nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided
 that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
 Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
 "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
 response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
 of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
 the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
 feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
 attention that they deserve.

 A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly
 before "callin on Walter".

 Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly
 respected" people to do the summaries.

 Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:09:34 -0500, TechnoZeus <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com>  
wrote:
 Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of  
 this thread.  Except that anyone could do a summary, and simply include  
 [summary] in the subject, so that it can be searched for.

 The fact that anyone can do it, means you aren't restricted to one  
 person's opinion... and it wouldn't take long for Walter, or anyone  
 else, to learn which people's summaries they get the most useful  
 information out of.

A summary should contain no "opinion" at all, but rather be impartial and  
objective and supply any/all sides of the debate without  
miss-representation. Ideally. :)

Regan

 TZ

 "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message  
 news:4266EDE0.2020404 nospam.org...
 Brad Beveridge wrote:
 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way  

 across
 interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that  

 the
 discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
 nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have  

 decided
 that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
 Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
 "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
 response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
 of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
 the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
 feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
 attention that they deserve.

 A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly
 before "callin on Walter".

 Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly
 respected" people to do the summaries.

 Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".

"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:

Ideally, yes... but in reality it never happens.  I would "ask" to anyone who
will listen, that anyone who states in a summary (which is labeled as such)
something that they recognize to be only their opinion, or the opinion of
themselves and others but not "everyone" should try to remember to mention in
the summary that it is an opinion, simply for clarity.

By the way... run a subject search for "[:=]" and another one for "[Walter]"
and you will find an example of subject tags in use.  This is a tried and
successful method of tagging subjects, so I see no reason why we shouldn't go
ahead and use it here.

TechnoZeus

"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message
news:opspj3izxy23k2f5 nrage.netwin.co.nz...
 On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:09:34 -0500, TechnoZeus <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com>
 wrote:
 Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of
 this thread.  Except that anyone could do a summary, and simply include
 [summary] in the subject, so that it can be searched for.

 The fact that anyone can do it, means you aren't restricted to one
 person's opinion... and it wouldn't take long for Walter, or anyone
 else, to learn which people's summaries they get the most useful
 information out of.

 A summary should contain no "opinion" at all, but rather be impartial and
 objective and supply any/all sides of the debate without
 miss-representation. Ideally. :)

 Regan

 TZ

 "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede nospam.org> wrote in message
 news:4266EDE0.2020404 nospam.org...
 Brad Beveridge wrote:
 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way

 across
 interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that

 the
 discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
 nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have

 decided
 that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
 Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
 "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
 response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
 of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
 the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
 feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
 attention that they deserve.

 A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly
 before "callin on Walter".

 Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly
 respected" people to do the summaries.

 Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".

"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:

Great idea, in my opinion, but much easier said than elegantly done.

Here's a related idea that I started in another newsgroup a long time ago,
which has been successfully in use ever since...

Adopt the "[]" characters as a stylistic way of categorizing a post in it's
subject.

For examplem, if a post is about a possible bug,
then include [bug] in the subject.

In this same way, you could specifically call any one person's attention to a
post by including their name in the same way.

This would allow Walter to run a search for subjects with "[Walter]" in them to
find threads where someone felt it warranted to call his attention to what was
being said, and if anyone abuses it... he could quickly learn to pay less
attention to that particular person calling him by name in that way.

Son suggested topic keywords would be:
[bug] for possible bugs
[DMD v0.120] for things related specifically to version 0.120 of DMD.
[question] if you are looking for information or answers.
[idea] for thoughts that you would like to have discussed.
[suggestion] for ideas that you feel are aready to be considered for
implementation.
[important] as a general allert that you think it is critical that people read
it.
[everyone] for posts that you think everyone in the group can benefit from
reading.
Etcetera.

Of course, usage would be strictly stylistic and subject to the opinion of the
author.  That way, the tags can evolve as time goes on.

I would aslo recommend that if such subject tags are added to an existing
"reply" subject,
that they be added in front of it, to distinguish them from ones that were
simply passed down.

Furthermore, it would be good style to remove them from replies when you feel
they don't apply to the reply... in order to reduce the number of matches to a
specific search.

TZ

"Brad Beveridge" <brad somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:d46one$1htf$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across
 interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the
 discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
 nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided
 that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
 Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
 "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
 response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
 of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
 the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
 feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
 attention that they deserve.

 Cheers
 Brad

James McComb <ned jamesmccomb.id.au> writes:

<disingenuous-suggestion>
Let's wrap all of our sentences in descriptive, "XML-style" tags.
</disingenuous-suggestion>

<opinion-without-supporting-argument value="worthless">
Then our posts would be even *more* useful!
</opinion-without-supporting-argument>

James

"TechnoZeus" <TechnoZeus PeoplePC.com> writes:

Hahaha.  Cute.

Seriously though,
the suggestion I gave about using subject tags to allow keyword searches has
been in use for years already in the Active Worlds beta newsgroup,
and has been quite successful.
Also, it has migrated elsewhere from there,
because it works.

TZ

"James McComb" <ned jamesmccomb.id.au> wrote in message
news:d473ug$1qjg$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 <disingenuous-suggestion>
 Let's wrap all of our sentences in descriptive, "XML-style" tags.
 </disingenuous-suggestion>

 <opinion-without-supporting-argument value="worthless">
 Then our posts would be even *more* useful!
 </opinion-without-supporting-argument>

 James