What a crock!

What makes a question asked in 'PerlMonks Discussion' a different "type of discourse" from a question asked in 'Seekers of Perl Wisdom'?

Or code posted to 'Snippets', a different "type of discourse" from code posted in 'Code', or code posted to 'Cool uses for Perl'?

I suspect that the real problem with adding new sections, lies in the difficulty in modifying the existing codebase and database to accomodate them--and that's a pretty darn good reason--but type of discourse? Phooee!

For the purpose I described above, a single, wiki-style node (as used internally for pmdevil discussions amongst others) would more than suffice. And adding new nodes is not impossible as evidence by the relatively recent addition of 'Recent Threads'. Having wiki topics fall off the database after some short period of time would mitigate ongoing impact to the DB, and just doing away with voting completely would remove that concern from the table.

But type of discourse is a crock.

type of discourse is a crock.

PMD is an exception, obviously. And for the code sections, "discourse" could be size, style, format instead, but they're still not differentiated by topic. Indeed, one may find snippets, cool uses, catacombs, obfus, and poems dealing with (say) removing duplicates from an array while saving a CGI session to a database.

For the purpose I described above, a single, wiki-style node ... would more than suffice.

Having wiki topics fall off the database after some short period of time would mitigate ongoing impact to the DB, and just doing away with voting completely would remove that concern from the table.

Are you proposing a single wiki node for all OT discussions? If so, then that's clearly easy to do, and in fact one of the existing "fun" wikis could be repurposed for this. But I don't think that's such a great idea; a single wiki would be strained to breaking in pretty short order, I think.

How about if we could make scratchpad-like wikis, or rather, wiki-like scratchpads: owned by a specific user (each user would get at most one such thing) but open for writing by others. Perhaps the user could even control who can and can't write on the wiki. The thing I like about this approach is that it naturally lets the wiki fall under the "I can do whatever I want with my homenode and scratchpad" rule, which means there's no such thing as off topic.

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

Are you proposing a single wiki node for all OT discussions?

Well kinda. But without ever having used a PM wiki and so without any understanding of their implementation, and hence, their limitations.

My thoughts were of something along the lines of the Front Page. Ie.

• Only root topics shown on the initial page.

  Actually, just root topic titles would impose least strain.

• Topics shown in reverse chronological order.

  Ie. Newest first.

• Only a set number of topics listed. With a more... link to see any others that still persist.

  Or better (if it's not too hard), only the last 3 days or 2 or just 24 hours.

• Once a topic fails to receive any further responses, after an initial, minimal period (say 7? days, it simply evaporates.

• An enforced limit on a) the lifetime of a topic; b) the size of each individual topic.

  These set at (say) 30 days and 64k, just to prevent things from running away and taking on a life of their own.

That's about as far as my thought processes went. A single node that provides access to recent activity without imposing high load. Each topic and responses a single, unstructured lump of text editable by any monk. (Or maybe any monk above some preset level of participation?)

Essentially, a CB-like place without the 255-char post limit and no 'constant polling by every user'; and a somewhat extended visibility time. No long term persistance. No searchability. No XP. No consideration. No janitoring. No RSS or XML or Printable views.

How about if we could make scratchpad-like wikis, or rather, wiki-like scratchpads: owned by a specific user ...

I don't think that would serve the purpose.

The great thing about PM relative to blogs, is that each individual monk only need come to one place, rather than trawling a bunch of places that may or may not have something new, that may or may not be of interest.

The reasons for wanting to move OT out of the general discussion places are:

1. Short lived discussions about (say) radiation or the name of some German government organisation add nothing to the long term Perl knowledge base, so there is no reason for them to persist here. And long term impact of the DB is minimised.
2. Only those monks who wish to participate in OT discussions need ever look into the section place reserved for it.

   Even slightly off-topic discourse is enough to upset some monks; never mind extended discussion.

3. Having a single place where those monks comfortable with taking part in OT discourse.

   That way, the widest possible audience is canvased, commensurate with their wish to take part, without extraordinary effort of trawling dozens of places.

4. Removal of the OT section from the XP system ensures that we don't get extended discussions on the merits of Adidas over Nike trainers for the sole purpose of boosting a monks standing.

---

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

"Too many [] have been sedated by an oppressive environment of political correctness and risk aversion."

"Off Topic" is anything that doesn't fit into PM's current boxes. BrowserUk's proposal of a box for short lived off topic threads seems sound for a number of reasons:

• it provides a place for OT threads (which occur currently in any case)
• it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business' by removing OT threads from the main sections
• it allows convenient CB style conversations containing useful chunks of code or other material without need to resort to using scratch pads

My take on BrowserUk's proposal is on the lines of an uber CB which uses PM's node technology to provide a forum for extended discussion of anything relevant to Perl monks. Not a replacement for the "flow of consciousness" mode of discussion that the CB currently provides (and would continue to provide), but a side room with big white boards for dealing with bigger discussions than the CB accommodates easily.

it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business' by removing OT threads from the main sections

But it doesn't.

Another ramification of the given proposal (which, if I'm not mistaken, involves setting up a whole new form of interaction on PerlMonks, which I'm styling "light-weight threads") is that, first, we'd have OT cruft in two places: in the place we've set up for it, and continuing in the places it's always been; and then, why should the new "section" be the exclusive domain of OT discussions? It wouldn't be for long.

So, whether we create a new form of interaction for OT stuff or simply make an OT section which works like the existing sections, we'd still end up with discussions — in their usual mish-mash of on- and off-topic content — happening in two different places. Unless the proposal includes a solid idea on how to guarantee that on-topic and off-topic posts are confined to their allowed spaces, it's a non-starter.

And this is the heart of the reason why it doesn't make sense to try to segregate threads by topic. Some other criterion which remains essentially invariant throughout the thread (for example, style of discourse) is a better basis for segregation.

A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight

it limits the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business' by removing OT threads from the main sections

But it doesn't.

Golly, I didn't know it had been tried already!

If just one OT post were made to the proposed section rather than to one of the current sections then it would have "limited the impact of OT threads on PM's 'core business'".

The proposed section doesn't do anything about sub-threads that meander off topic. It does remove top level off topic posts from PM's 'core business' sections.

---

DWIM is Perl's answer to Gödel