Re^4: An OT section (again).

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:

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.
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.
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.
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."

Comment on Re^4: An OT section (again). Select or Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: An OT section (again). by jdporter (Paladin) on Aug 01, 2007 at 19:25 UTC
Thank you for the (mental) effort you've obviously put into this. However... If the intent is for an off-topic discussion to evaporate after some time, then using nodes for it is a bad idea. Yes, OT happens. But it should be discouraged. Making it easier or making a special place for it to happen has the opposite effect. Even if we implement your idea, OT threads, and especially OT sub-threads, will still happen, probably just as much as always, which means your benefit #1 isn't achieved, and likewise benefit #4, to some extent. Given that, I don't see your suggestion as an improvement over the status quo, which is, Put "[OT]" in your title when you stray off topic. Returning to my suggestion — it would be easy enough to add a "Recently updated homewikis" query to the existing "Recently updated homenodes" and "Recently updated scratchpads". (Actually... I don't see a "Recently updated scratchpads" query. I thought there was one. Was I hallucinating?) A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply]
Re^6: An OT section (again). by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 01, 2007 at 20:12 UTC
Yes, OT happens. But it should be discouraged. Making it easier or making a special place for it to happen has the opposite effect. If I got any reaction at all, that's the one I expected. A rhetorical question you might like to ask yourself, is: Why should it be discouraged. What is so all-fire wrong if the users of this community, wish to solicite and share, their experience, skills and knowledge, beyond those that relate directly to Perl. 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."	[reply]
Re^7: An OT section (again). by jdporter (Paladin) on Aug 01, 2007 at 20:28 UTC
Well, OT is, by definition, off topic. If we expand the scope of what's on topic for PerlMonks by letting anything at all be perfectly acceptable, then there is no OT, and we have slashdot. OTOH, letting users solicite and share, their experience, skills and knowledge, beyond those that relate directly to Perl is something that PerlMonks permits, as long as it relates, however indirectly, to Perl. In the end, social pressure is the best — if not in fact the only — way to keep PerlMonks from becoming slashdot. It has worked so far, more or less. A word spoken in Mind will reach its own level, in the objective world, by its own weight	[reply]
Re^5: An OT section (again). by planetscape (Chancellor) on Aug 03, 2007 at 02:41 UTC
Once a topic fails to receive any further responses, after an initial, minimal period (say 7? days, it simply evaporates. If this were to be somehow implemented retroactively, many of the nodes I've bookmarked via my Personal/Free Nodelets would simply evaporate (say, [OT] What is "the German Institute for Security in Information Technology"?, which I bookmarked precisely because of its discussion of radiation). Granted, then I probably wouldn't need my extra scratchpad, but overall I'd be very disappointed. HTH, planetscape	[reply]
Re^6: An OT section (again). by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Aug 03, 2007 at 04:18 UTC
The thought was to attempt to head off the (valid) potential counter-argument, that given the nature of the hardware PM runs on (ie. donated), that the extra diskspace consumed by allowing general discussion to take place here would impose too great a burden upon that generosity. But maybe disk space isn't a concern. Indeed, in the OP I also suggested that rather than XP being accumulated for OT discussion (another possible reason for not allowing it), that votes could be used to cause threads that garner sufficient interest, to be retained. I hereby withdraw that suggestion in favour of no voting at all. Personally, I like the idea that such discussion should evaporate. Anyone who finds a particular thread of long term interest has the option to save a local copy. In part, the reason for wanting this is, as mentioned above, as a slightly longer lived uber-CB. A place where off-topic discussion can go and continue to its natural end without concerns for the sensitivities of those who prefer this place to be pure perl. Also, a place where two or more people can go to pursue an extended off-topic conversation without the 255-char /msg limit; the restriction it places on trying to share code samples via each others scratchpads; and all the other general awkwardness that attempting to have off-thread discussions leads to. A while ago I was trying to work with a couple of other people on something and we moved to emails. Two-way by email is okay, though the delays are annoying. 3-way by email gets really bloody messy, with whomever has the slowest email-path constantly playing: Answer the question before the question before the previous question; compounded by the out of order delivery that inevitably occurs if one persons mail-paths are faster than another's. Try 4-way and you've got the mailing list scenario of everyone talking at once. All typing furiously to correct the same misunderstanding; or pounding on their CheckMail icons waiting for responses. That's why I infinitely prefer this place to mailing lists. With the latter, whenever anything vaguely controversial comes up, you get the 'everybody talking and nobody listening' scenario. But for the same reasons as the CB, some conversations do not warrant being set in stone and retained for all time. Sometimes it's nice to just talk without having to expend time on deeply analytical thought; or worrying about whether it's it's or its; or how ones personal opinions might play to the wider audience. For all those reasons, I think that it should evaporate once the discussion comes to a close. And if any mechanism was put in place to allow the retention of threads or posts, individual authors should have a veto. Either a blanket veto, or a per-post veto. This latter notion would complicate things wildly and so my preference would be for no such mechanism. If you see something of interest and wish to retain it--take a local copy. 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."	[reply]