On Sunday 21 December 2008 03:49:44 Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:35:14AM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> > * "Vocal minority" dominates "silent majority" by contributing a
> > disproportionate amount of list traffic, [...]
>
> Note that voting can have a similar drawback -- in tha
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:35:14AM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> * "Vocal minority" dominates "silent majority" by contributing a
> disproportionate amount of list traffic, [...]
Note that voting can have a similar drawback -- in that if you've got
enough like-minded people voting for a particular
On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 09:38:56AM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> George Danchev writes:
>
> > On Saturday 20 December 2008 21:33:27 MJ Ray wrote:
> > > So, people who remain on the debian mailing lists have a poor
> > > understanding of what should appear a good mailing list,
> >
> > What makes you
George Danchev writes:
> On Saturday 20 December 2008 21:33:27 MJ Ray wrote:
> > So, people who remain on the debian mailing lists have a poor
> > understanding of what should appear a good mailing list,
>
> What makes you think that "vocal minority" is larger than "silent
> majority" in debian
Florian Weimer writes:
> * MJ Ray:
>
>> Jurij Smakov wrote: [...]
>>> So, what can we do about? During a little brainstorming session on IRC
>>> last night a following idea has emerged: let's have a way to express
>>> our opinion about the mailing list posts. [...]
>>
>> So, people who remain
* MJ Ray:
> Jurij Smakov wrote: [...]
>> So, what can we do about? During a little brainstorming session on IRC
>> last night a following idea has emerged: let's have a way to express
>> our opinion about the mailing list posts. [...]
>
> So, people who remain on the debian mailing lists have a
On Saturday 20 December 2008 21:33:27 MJ Ray wrote:
> Jurij Smakov wrote: [...]
>
> > So, what can we do about? During a little brainstorming session on IRC
> > last night a following idea has emerged: let's have a way to express
> > our opinion about the mailing list posts. [...]
>
> So, people w
Jurij Smakov wrote: [...]
> So, what can we do about? During a little brainstorming session on IRC
> last night a following idea has emerged: let's have a way to express
> our opinion about the mailing list posts. [...]
So, people who remain on the debian mailing lists have a poor
understanding
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 08:23:27AM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> If this vote is 1:1 then there's no point in the 3:1 requirement since
> you can just ignore them with a 1:1 vote. When we (using the term
> loosely, since it doesn't include me) voted in the constitution, surely
> the 3:1 requireme
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:35:14AM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>> It is generally perceived that there are currently a couple of
>> problems with the way discussions happen on our mailing lists:
> I'm not sure yet if I like the idea, but for sure it is an intriguing
>
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 05:02:23PM +0100, David Paleino wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:35:14 +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
>
> > I believe that at this point Nick Rusnov, John Goerzen and myself have
> > expressed interest in working on the first stage of the project. If
> > you have any ideas or
Le Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 07:12:15PM +0200, Teemu Likonen a écrit :
>
> Maybe even add an additional header to mailing-list posts, like
> "X-Debian-Author-Karma: +234". OK, maybe not. It's not terribly reliable
> on public mailing lists because users can change their From addresses as
> they want. B
Raphael Hertzog (2008-12-20 17:41 +0100) wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> seemed to be more oriented to scoring single posts, while here you
>> are kind of inheriting a score on the poster from his posts. They are
>> two quite different approaches.
>
> They are different
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I like the idea of clarifying what the principles of the project
> actually are, since, as aj said, all the decisions about lenny would
> fall out from the position the project take about the foundation
> documents. While I have always thought that "foundation" implied t
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ re-ordering the quoted text, anticipating your reply to my post ]
>
> On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 04:35:43PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > The goal is not (necessarily to) filter the messages that we want to
> > see or not, the goal is to give fee
[ re-ordering the quoted text, anticipating your reply to my post ]
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 04:35:43PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> The goal is not (necessarily to) filter the messages that we want to
> see or not, the goal is to give feedback to contributors so that
> they know if their messag
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:35:14 +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> I believe that at this point Nick Rusnov, John Goerzen and myself have
> expressed interest in working on the first stage of the project. If
> you have any ideas or comments - please share, we would also welcome
> your contribution if yo
Hello,
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> and so on. The way I would like to see this idea developing is that it
> starts as an unofficial project, with very simple rules (like, "you
> can vote once for each message ID"), which simply collects the data
> and makes it publicly available
On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 10:35:14AM +, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> It is generally perceived that there are currently a couple of
> problems with the way discussions happen on our mailing lists:
I'm not sure yet if I like the idea, but for sure it is an intriguing
one, thanks for pushing it through!
On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The social contract is supposedly a contract.
The Social Contract is not a contract (even though it is called that - but I
believe the name is an intentional reference to a famous concept in political
philosophy). A contr
Hi,
It is generally perceived that there are currently a couple of
problems with the way discussions happen on our mailing lists:
* Some people are put off from participating in the discussions
on important topics because they are not willing to expose themselves
to offensive behaviour and per
On Fri Dec 19 20:55, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > ,[ The social contract is a non-binding advisory document ]
> > | This amends the proposal above, and replaces the text of the proposal
> > | with: The developers, via a general resolution, determine that the
> > | social contract is a stateme
On Sat Dec 20 14:52, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 08:31:34PM +, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> > I assume any final proposal would explicitly amend the SC/constitution
> > to state this. In fact, I'm tempted to say that _all_ of these should
> > include SC/Constitution amendments to
23 matches
Mail list logo
