Re: Define "On Topic" for the Monastery
by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jul 17, 2015 at 19:37 UTC
|
Anything applicable to Computer Science (algorithm, theory, practice, NP complete discussions, etc) or to work involving Perl (project management, how much beer makes you a better hacker or does it, keyboard selection, glued languages, editors...) seems the complete range of Off-Topic that would be acceptable and does range very far afield but still might belong here or help other monks.
Dating, politics, cooking... Unless you're dating another monk or running for chair of the EPO or cooking a monk... That's why one Facebooks or Tumblrs or Reddits.
I don't think we need a guide. Off-topic is like pornography. Not just that one knows it when one sees it but what was pr0n 30 years ago is just about PG-13 today. Off-topic today might not feel like off-topic tomorrow.
| [reply] |
|
one knows it when one sees it
delegate this question to the janitors
The problem in this (and that) approach -- which is what we've always done -- is that, when someone objects to a certain action (e.g. "My post wasn't off topic!"), we don't have something we can point them to. People are not satisfied with "sorry, it's janitor's discretion". They have to live with it, yes; but it's not satisfying, and does nothing to abate the flamefests.
I'm not suggesting that the definitions should be very specific and rigid. In fact, with my Process Improvement hat on, I'd say probably the best way to start would be for the janitors to write down what criteria, heuristics, etc. they use, no matter how nebulous. Someone could then take that material and try to distill it for the documentation.
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16 ,000 zombies.
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
|
...politics... politicis in the sense of national politics -- I agree that is off topic for this website
But, for example, politics of programming websites and mailing lists and bug reports, I believe that could be on topic for our off topic section
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
Re: Define "On Topic" for the Monastery
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jul 17, 2015 at 21:40 UTC
|
My broad strokes definition would be: 'Anything that a professional (predominantly Perl) programmer might (reasonably) find themselves needing to solve as a part of their work'.
My examples of what that includes:
- Algorithms.
- Maths.
- Design.
- Any programming language that might be called on to inter-operate with Perl.
- Methodologies.
- Tools.
- Techniques: design; programming, testing; documenting; packaging; validating; benchmarking; security.
- Programming related legal issues.
My examples of what that excludes:
- Politics: (possibly excepting office politics.)
- Religion: for or against, any and all religions; and religion-like philosophies.
- Race.
- Gender.
- Exploits, easter-eggs and strategies for playing computer games.
- Sex/porn/relationships/conquests.
- Anything illegal.
- Cleaning the toilets.
For arbitration; I'd suggest an extension of the current consideration process whereby a post considered for being too off topic would be borged. Ie. Rendered ineligible for the front page and uncommentable until at least (say) 11 people had voted ack/nack; with the majority at that point being the decider.
| [reply] |
Re: Define "On Topic" for the Monastery
by Laurent_R (Canon) on Jul 18, 2015 at 10:34 UTC
|
That's reminding me of a discussion on the same subject a few weeks ago.
Sometimes someone asks about how to do this with Perl under Linux (or pick whatever other OS, application, network environment, etc.). And, although it related to Perl, it is obviously a question about that OS or environment rather than Perl. I might reply something like this:
You might have a better chance of a good response on the following Linux (or whatever) forum.
If I make such answer, I am just trying to help the OP and tell him or her to check on another forum, but it certainly does not mean that I consider the OP to be off-topic, but just that it might be better on-topic on another forum, but that post still is on-topic here.
Other wise, I basically agree with Your Mother:
"Anything applicable to Computer Science (algorithm, theory, practice, NP complete discussions, etc) or to work involving Perl (project management, how much beer makes you a better hacker or does it, keyboard selection, glued languages, editors...) seems the complete range of Off-Topic that would be acceptable and does range very far afield but still might belong here or help other monks."
| [reply] |
Re: Define "On Topic" for the Monastery
by GotToBTru (Prior) on Jul 17, 2015 at 19:51 UTC
|
I would be delegate this question to the janitors. Do they feel a call to action on this topic? Because the burden of enforcing it, beyond moderation, falls to them.
If Perlmonks decides to get more formal in its definition of off-topic, I'd suggest the following:
| [reply] |
|
| [reply] |
Re: Define "On Topic" for the Monastery
by marinersk (Priest) on Jul 17, 2015 at 21:38 UTC
|
If there's a set of topicality rules to be used, I think having something written down is good -- it doesn't have to be worded with mathematical precision. The Monastery Code can be more like what you would call "guidelines". But having something to refer to, which can be adjusted as needed, will more than likely help more than hurt.
So, to the questions:
- offtopicroot:
- spam
- posts which are not redeemable from topical proximity as noted below
- posts which are deemed to include farcicle Perl, PerlMonks, or Perlesque topics only to veil a clear intention to troll; this is a judgement call and should be used with extreme reticence
- section nonapproval: Comments which do not qualify under topical proximity as noted below, but which are social enough to be considered "In the Spirit of the Monastery"*, insomuch as the Monastery is sometimes as much a social place as it is a technical one.
- labeled: Computer-related conversations which do not implicate, mention, reference, or otherwise involve Perl; this includes topics which could include use of Perl but are otherwise too general to be considered Perlesque. I would consider these to have good topical proximity to Perl, even if not actually about Perl.
- severity: I see almost no useful distinction between these latter two categories, but if they must be divided, I've identified where I see a relatively logical (if a bit fuzzy) dividing line.
*Answering this question gave me an idea I'd like to include here, even though it is solutions-oriented and out of scope of the question, because otherwise I'm likely to forgot to bring it up at the appropriate time. A nice feature to consider adding: The owner, or perhaps a Consideration feature, to reparent a mid-conversation node to the offtopic section, should one come into existence, to effectively trim a conversation down to its Perl-related components, with side conversations relegated to the off-topic section. The corner and edge cases here could quickly become overwhelming (what do do with the descendent nodes), but if someone has a brilliant idea in that space, I thought I'd toss this log onto the fire.
| [reply] |
Re: Define "On Topic" for the Monastery
by Discipulus (Canon) on Jul 24, 2015 at 07:25 UTC
|
| [reply] [d/l] |