in reply to Parlour?

I don't think it's really necessary, and of course we want to minimize the workload of our fearless leader. You just can append replies to your original node, just like I did for example with this. If you dig enough in that one, there is a very nice discussion between tilly and tye about our, among others. That discussion started some time after i started the thread.

Audience? The veteran monks always check new notes in the newest nodes list to browse for replies in threads they like. These ppl will see new leaves on your tree. You always can invite others (who gave some significant input) with /msg to read new updates.

XP? Old threads don't gather mucho XP, but I have the feeling you're not such an XP whore. So just reply with an update to your old thread.

Eventually, there comes a time that your modules grow large, and than you need your own mailing list. Consider a sourceforge project in that case.

Jeroen
"We are not alone"(FZ)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Parlour?
by Tiefling (Monk) on Jun 13, 2001 at 18:51 UTC
    I don't think it's really necessary, and of course we want to minimize the workload of our fearless leader. You just can append replies to your original node, just like I did for example with this. If you dig enough in that one, there is a very nice discussion between tilly and tye about our, among others. That discussion started some time after i started the thread.

    Clearly TMTOWTDI. It was just such a situation as you describe which inspired my original suggestion. If I had wanted to see discussion about our (as opposed to just reading the docs), I would not have known to look in a thread called SuperSplit, in the Craft section. And indeed, the thread retains that name throughout, so I wouldn't know by checking Newest Nodes that the topic had shifted to our and the like. The idea of the Parlour is that discussions of a generalised but productive nature could be pushed over there (and possibly threaded in some other format, to highlight newness of responses) so as to keep the various departments clear for the purposes 'on the tin', as it were.

    Audience? The veteran monks always check new notes in the newest nodes list to browse for replies in threads they like. These ppl will see new leaves on your tree. You always can invite others (who gave some significant input) with /msg to read new updates.

    Just as you say - the veteran monks will know. (Although not flawlessly - see above.) Newcomers who may well want most of all to participate in generalised Perl discussion can find the Monastery somewhat daunting, with everything apparently strictly sorted by theme.

    XP? Old threads don't gather mucho XP, but I have the feeling you're not such an XP whore. So just reply with an update to your old thread.

    You flatter me, brother. :-) But I hadn't personally considered XP an issue. What I'm concerned about is that disucssion of wider relevance can end up buried at the dog end of threads. (Like the abovementioned discussion of our, or the projected implementation details of the Text Adventure Project.) By pulling persistent ideas over to the Parlour, we'd be able to discuss them with more leisure. (The second Text Adventure thread already has a note depth of 14. People aren't going to root around at those bottom ends on the offchance of new relevance.)

    Eventually, there comes a time that your modules grow large, and than you need your own mailing list. Consider a sourceforge project in that case.

    For one, I've only the vaguest awareness of Sourceforge. For another, the Parlour would be the best place for such ideas _until_ they go critical and need their own managed mailing list.

    Just my half-groat in the monastery strong-box.

    Tiefling

    -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d++ s:- a-- C++ UL P++ L++(+) E? W+(++) N+ o? K w+(--)
!O M- V? PS+ PE- Y PGP- t+ 5 X+ R+++ tv- b+++ DI++++ D+ G+ e++ h!(-) y
+?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

    [download]
[reply]
[d/l]
      You are right in the sense that updates to old threads don't get that much exposure. (my /msg idea was just to compensate for that). You can surely ask yourself if the PM-comunity wants exposure on detailistic threads. I'd answer "No", and state that interested ppl will come back.

      And you hit solid rock when you say that interesting threads are buried under flawed titles. A better solution would be if ppl change the titles of subthreads, just like they do in newsgroups. I promise to improve myself and change titles from now on. QED

      If you think clearly, there is new functionality in the Parlour section! The only thing is the other status of threads... and that reminds me of a previous discussion. And maybe the ability to track a discussion.

      Jeroen
      "We are not alone"(FZ)
      Update: I really agree with kudra on the was syntax.

[reply]
        Unfortunately, changing titles tends to discourage one of the easiest ways of following a thread--following it in newest nodes. Personally, I prefer the (was: ) syntax to both give an indication of context while still allowing sensible renaming.
[reply]
        Ok - different version of the idea: how about the Parlour as a page indexing (a) the most heavily trafficked threads and (b) recently re-opened threads?

        As for node-naming, you're quite right.

        Tiefling

        -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GAT d++ s:- a-- C++ UL P++ L++(+) E? W+(++) N+ o? K w+(--)
!O M- V? PS+ PE- Y PGP- t+ 5 X+ R+++ tv- b+++ DI++++ D+ G+ e++ h!(-) y
+?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

        [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion