Exactly. Its certainly closer to realization now than
it has been in the past.
-Chad
On Sep 24, 2009 9:11 AM, "Liam Wyatt" wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chad wrote: >
It is in usable conditio...
> The current testing of LiquidThreads and tweaking of the interface is here
and the Dev
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Chad wrote:
> It is in usable condition ;-)
>
> -Chad
>
> On Sep 24, 2009 3:37 AM, "David Gerard" wrote:
>
> 2009/9/24 Jonathan Kallay :
>
> > It seems to me that a new Wikipedia-inspired project could help address >
> the many civility/noise...
> > Thoughts?
>
It is in usable condition ;-)
-Chad
On Sep 24, 2009 3:37 AM, "David Gerard" wrote:
2009/9/24 Jonathan Kallay :
> It seems to me that a new Wikipedia-inspired project could help address >
the many civility/noise...
> Thoughts?
Feature suggestions for LiquidThreads? That's the Wiki-ish forum
2009/9/24 Jonathan Kallay :
> It seems to me that a new Wikipedia-inspired project could help address
> the many civility/noise problems of mailing lists, web forums, etc. A
> Thoughts?
Feature suggestions for LiquidThreads? That's the Wiki-ish forum
solution that one day is hoped to be in usab
I started reading the archives of this mailing list today because I
wanted to run an idea by community members on this topic and wanted to
see if this list was an appropriate place to do so, so for me this
thread is serendipitous.
It seems to me that a new Wikipedia-inspired project could help
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> [...]
> It is open to read worldwide without registration, first time posters
> have to authenticate their mail address in the "from" with gmane.
... and to subscribe to foundation-l with "nomail" AFAIR.
Tim
___
foundati
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Erik Zachte wrote:
> For the record, I am one of those who did not speak up yet
> (ref Austin) who would hope some of our power posters felt
> less need to share every thought with the rest of us.
>
> In a public debate few people with a firm stance can be
> convin
2009/9/13 Austin Hair :
> I've personally met some of the most prolific posters to Foundation-l,
> and not one I can think of is the type to dominate a conversation in
> person.
*cough* I am, but consciously try to moderate it. A bit.
> I'm encouraged by how the discussion's progressed thus fa
How am I heckling you? I'm just stating the facts. There's no need for
this to turn into a fight.
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
>
>> People are complaining to whoever is in charge of the venue.
>>
>
> And if the person
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Mark Williamson wrote:
> People are complaining to whoever is in charge of the venue.
>
And if the person in charge of the venue considers me to be a net detriment,
I hope and expect that I will be asked, privately, to leave, at which point
I will comply.
There'
People are complaining to whoever is in charge of the venue.
skype: node.ue
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 7:31 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>>
>> A mailing list, however, is different. A mailing list is a
>> conversation. Everyone's been in a conversati
For the record, I am one of those who did not speak up yet
(ref Austin) who would hope some of our power posters felt
less need to share every thought with the rest of us.
In a public debate few people with a firm stance can be
convinced to change their mind, so most polemical posts
can only ho
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
>
> A mailing list, however, is different. A mailing list is a
> conversation. Everyone's been in a conversation where a single person
> dominated, and no matter how smart or charismatic or entertaining he
> may be, dominating a conversation mi
Austin Hair wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that the mailing list is working just fine, despite a few
>> people who complain far too much about the volume of traffic, or about
>> the occasional tendency to irrelevant comments. They need to exerci
2009/9/13 Henning Schlottmann :
> This whole issue is one of information processing. Everyone has to learn
> how to deal with information in large amounts and on different media.
> But there have been a few generations of experience we can plug in,
> there are best practices and web boards are not
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
>
> For every one of the "few people" who complain, I'll bet money that
> there are at least ten who don't speak up on the list, because other
> people are championing the cause already; for every one of those
> there's probably another who unsu
Austin Hair wrote:
> A mailing list, however, is different. A mailing list is a
> conversation. Everyone's been in a conversation where a single person
> dominated, and no matter how smart or charismatic or entertaining he
> may be, dominating a conversation minimizes the chance for other
> peopl
Delirium wrote:
> Maybe I'm unusual in treating large mailing lists as if they were
> FidoNet or Usenet discussion forums, but the idea of people being
> bothered by long threads they don't care about, individuals whose posts
> they don't like, etc., is strange to me. Isn't that easily handled on
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Seems to me that the mailing list is working just fine, despite a few
> people who complain far too much about the volume of traffic, or about
> the occasional tendency to irrelevant comments. They need to exercise a
> little more patience a
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Mailing lists are push media and they are one stop: the new posts come
> to my own mail folders automatically. Their look and feel is always the
> same: that of my mail program (or web mail operator). Browsing through
> "your" web boards in the morning takes much, much
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 1:03 AM, Philippe Beaudette <
pbeaude...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>
> >> LiquidThreads was developed for that
> >> purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no
> >> significant
> >> interest from the communi
Ya..I think must go on
--Original Message--
From: Philippe Beaudette
Sender: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
ReplyTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
Sent: Sep 12, 2009 08:03
On Sep 11
On Sep 11, 2009, at 7:06 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
>> LiquidThreads was developed for that
>> purpose, but it seems to have been largely discarded, with no
>> significant
>> interest from the community, the foundation or the usability team -
>> why?
>
> This may be part of the solution, but the
Tisza, this is very well put.
On 9/11/09, Tisza Gergő wrote:
> - the discussion space is divided by time, not by topic. What little
> topic-based
Yes. put another way, 'there is no natural namespace to fill and
revise over time as all useful discussions are traversed'
> - the moderation is
Erik Moeller writes:
> What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
> communities that we should experiment with to create a healthier, more
> productive discussion culture? What, based on your own experience of
> this list, would you like to see change?
I'll try to gather what I
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Brian wrote:
>
> Some of us feel that the foundation has become out of our reach.
> That no matter how much we discuss and try to reach consensus it will just be
> too
> hard,
Is this related to the foundation per se? This is just a difficulty
of large scale con
I agree with Tim's initial points.
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> wine-users - http://forum.winehq.org/
>
> If you allow posting via email, then you lose the ability to properly
> authenticate those posts. If you allow receiving of the full content
N
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Henning Schlottmann
wrote:
> Austin Hair wrote:
>> My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm
>> perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I
>> don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that
>> it
Henning Schlottmann writes:
> I'm reading and posting to the list using nntp. foundation-l is
> distributed by gmane.org as the (pseudo) newsgroup
> news:gemane.org.wikimedia.foundation on the server news.gmane.org along
> with all the other Wikimedia mailing lists and it is by far the most
> com
Austin Hair wrote:
> My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm
> perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I
> don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that
> it risks killing what good we do have with the existing methods.
I'm r
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
> I would suggest that the optimal solution is probably a system that is
> mostly a forum but has a few email features as well rather than
> thinking of it as a gateway primarily designed to be used around
> email.
>
Google Wave promises prett
Austin Hair wrote:
> In Buenos Aires I had multiple people ask (even practically beg) me to
> do something about foundation-l. One person said "fucking moderate
> foundation-l, already!"—to which I explained why I didn't think that
> moderating individuals was a solution, but had to admit that I d
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Part of traditional professionalization is also to only make a
> commitment when you feel you can uphold it. So where a casual,
> informal organization is more likely to say "Yeah, sure" and then
> never do anything (FlaggedRevisions and SUL being two examples of this
> happen
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Austin Hair wrote:
>> My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm
>> perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I
>> don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that
>> it risks ki
Austin Hair wrote:
> My ideal, personally, is something more like nntp--and while I'm
> perfectly happy to turn over the list to some other technology, I
> don't know that this is the magic solution, and I agree with Tim that
> it risks killing what good we do have with the existing methods.
I lik
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> wine-users - http://forum.winehq.org/
>>
>> It started as a mailing list, then the forum was set up with a two-way
>> gateway. The forum is where most of the posters actually post from,
>> but so far it works ... surprisi
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
>> wine-users - http://forum.winehq.org/
>>
>> It started as a mailing list, then the forum was set up with a two-way
>> gateway. The forum is where most of the posters actually post from,
>> but so far it works ... surprisi
David Gerard wrote:
> wine-users - http://forum.winehq.org/
>
> It started as a mailing list, then the forum was set up with a two-way
> gateway. The forum is where most of the posters actually post from,
> but so far it works ... surprisingly well!
If you allow posting via email, then you lose t
Brian wrote:
> This is unfortunate - why are so many people more interested in
> backwards-looking criticism than forward-looking progress?
They are not many, they are very few. But they are allowed to
speak freely, beyond all reasonable proportions.
The majority is silent. Count how many memb
2009/9/9 Robert Rohde :
> Some modern forums have features that can interact very intelligently
> with email, which to my mind might be the best of both worlds. Such
> things would still allow the features you mention such as thread
> locking and removal of abuse from the archive, but would also
Tim Starling wrote:
> I think we should stop using this outdated technology altogether and
> instead switch to a web-based forum, where comments can be
> postmoderated (i.e. removed after posting), and unproductive threads
> can be moved or locked.
Web boards are crap, partly precisely for the re
2009/9/9 Anthony :
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
>> I think we should stop using this outdated technology altogether and
>> instead switch to a web-based forum, where comments can be
>> postmoderated (i.e. removed after posting), and unproductive threads
>> can be moved or
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:45 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Tim Starling
> wrote:
> > Erik Moeller wrote:
> >> 2009/9/8 Gregory Maxwell :
> >>> As such, it's time to try something different.
> >>
> >> What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
> >> com
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 8:37 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> Erik Moeller wrote:
>> 2009/9/8 Gregory Maxwell :
>>> As such, it's time to try something different.
>>
>> What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
>> communities that we should experiment with to create a healthier, more
>>
2009/9/8 Brian :
> Some of us feel
> that the foundation has become out of our reach. That no matter how much we
> discuss and try to reach consensus it will just be too hard, or there will
> be a lack of interest in our consensus at the foundation, for any real
> change to happen. You practically
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:44 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
> I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l for
> brainstorming of how to make this list a little bit less of a
> cesspool. Please feel free to ignore the initial thoughts I banged
> out as a starting point and refactor as
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:37 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think we should stop using this outdated technology altogether and
> instead switch to a web-based forum, where comments can be
> postmoderated (i.e. removed after posting), and unproductive threads
> can be moved or locked.
>
I only find t
On Sep 8, 2009, at 10:37 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
> I think we should stop using this outdated technology altogether and
> instead switch to a web-based forum, where comments can be
> postmoderated (i.e. removed after posting), and unproductive threads
> can be moved or locked.
+me - and I would
Erik Moeller wrote:
> 2009/9/8 Gregory Maxwell :
>> As such, it's time to try something different.
>
> What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
> communities that we should experiment with to create a healthier, more
> productive discussion culture? What, based on your own exp
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Brian wrote:
> Austin, your page says nothing about the kinds of conversations you would
> like to see on foundation-l.
You're right, it doesn't. I don't see it as my place to dictate, and
I'm looking for most of the input to come from others.
I do, however, hope
ropriate, that could/would create a virtuous cycle of its own :-)
-Original Message-
From: Brian
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 20:29:09
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> I
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 7:44 PM, Austin Hair wrote:
> I've created http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Improving_Foundation-l for
> brainstorming of how to make this list a little bit less of a
> cesspool.
>
Austin, your page says nothing about the kinds of conversations you would
like to see on found
2009/9/8 Austin Hair :
> In Buenos Aires I had multiple people ask (even practically beg) me to
> do something about foundation-l. One person said "fucking moderate
> foundation-l, already!"—to which I explained why I didn't think that
> moderating individuals was a solution, but had to admit tha
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I'd prefer that moderation of this list be used as a last resort to
> maintain civil discourse and not as a tool to impose an external view
> of the desired traffic volume and especially not in a way which could
> be construed as prohibiting
--- On Tue, 9/8/09, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> From: Gregory Maxwell
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Use of moderation
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2009, 6:05 PM
> In the thread "WMF seeking to
> sub-lease office space?&q
2009/9/8 Gregory Maxwell :
> As such, it's time to try something different.
What do you suggest? Are there models from other mailing list
communities that we should experiment with to create a healthier, more
productive discussion culture? What, based on your own experience of
this list, would you
on 9/8/09 8:18 PM, Nathan at nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
> I don't think that this sort of moderation has been common in the
> past, but I think the moderation of Greg Kohs went a bit far - and for
> the reasons outlined by Greg Maxwell.
>
> Nathan
I agree with you, Nathan. And I also agree with Mr
I don't think that this sort of moderation has been common in the
past, but I think the moderation of Greg Kohs went a bit far - and for
the reasons outlined by Greg Maxwell.
Nathan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscr
+1
On 2009-09-09, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> In the thread "WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?"
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
> (to Gregory Kohs)
> [snip]
>> I've placed you on indefinite
>> moderation with the goal of improving the signal:crazy ratio.
>
> With somethin
In the thread "WMF seeking to sub-lease office space?"
On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
(to Gregory Kohs)
[snip]
> I've placed you on indefinite
> moderation with the goal of improving the signal:crazy ratio.
With something like 40 posts made to that thread after Mr. Kohs' last
60 matches
Mail list logo
