scrMostly meta (was Re: Welcome To "scr"!)

[Richard Clamp <richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[ack, meta and written out of sequence so it doesn't make sense.  kill
me now]

On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 01:42:09PM +0100, scr-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> I've started a mailing list on thegestalt.org called 'scr' because,
> well, that's what (Evil) Dave said it should be called. I was tempted
> by 'bridge' because, well, we were standing by a bridge.

And bridges can be computery.

> The name is not important. It can be changed later.

But what does it mean?  Is it a corruption of src?  Dict.org only
knows: 'Selective Call Rejection' and 'Sustainable Cell Rate', neither
of which sound like obvious candidates.

> Anyway, this is what I've been thinking.

Oh oh, thoughts lead to lists, lists lead to suffering.

> It would be modelled on post-apocalyptic Haddock and Simon Cozen's
> language-dev list - invite only, strictly on topic, deviations will be
> punished harshly.

I didn't realise that language-dev was invite only though I did
imagine it would be so tech-bent as to be self-selecting.  Hmmm.

> 
> That leads to some interesting questions though.
> 
> Topic? Well, nominally about the esoteric side of tech, the
> philosophy, the impact is has on lives. But how do you define
> on-topic? We've just had a long thread on Shampoo on (void). Would
> talking about shampoo be on topic? No, probably not. Would the stuff
> about the technology behind shampoo have been on topic? Possibly. I
> think it's going to have be enforced on an ad-hoc basis.

The thing is inspiration comes from the strangest places, that's why
it's inspiration.  As a handy example, the batch thread.

I scanned the start as: you'll answer any question, so answer this.
An answer.  Then gets thrown in "I don't know how you freaks can learn
that stuff" then *boom*, one seriously on-topic thread.

I'm also fond of the phrase "I am part of the problem, fuck you", but
then some originality would be as useful.

On the other hand I think I can bring shampoo on topic in two easy
moves.  Now should we cull or force the move to happen?

1) Do Geeks have sterotypical grooming patterns, let's say yes so I
   can get to step 2.

2) Does that show through in the stuff they knock out?  And which came
   first. And is it causal or coincidental.  Would _you_ trust a
   programmer wearing a suit?

> Who do you invite? This is the tricky bit. There's a lot to be said
> for inviting friends because, well, you know them and you can vouch
> for them. The Old boy network isn't necessarily a bad thing. On the
> gripping hand then you may tend to cliqueiness (sp?).

Based on some random pop psychology that I'm making up right now,
that's likely to form really dull consensus.

That said, having a public and inclusive list doesn't seem to prevent
cliques from forming either.  It's a pretty basic drive to want a
tribe, and anyone who's too postmodern to admit it gets lumbered with
an arty knowing one, but at least they dress well.

Fights and blood would be good, but only if both parties are smart
enough to know when they're dead.

> Do you keep it secret or not? If you don't people will want to get on
> and might be insulted that you haven't invited them. But then it will
> probably get out sooner or later and people will get offended then.

What could work is an announcement that it's starting, with plenty of
empasis about it being purely on-topic.  If it can be made to sound
different enough that people don't think that it's dissing their
specific brainchildren directly that would be good too.

What I don't think works is trying to throw technology at the problem,
I have more faith that a human with a big stick can get the message
across.

> This is a test, if we can have a sensible discussion about mailing
> lists and the dynamics of them then it's a good sign.

munging! threading! editing!

Round 1 - Fight!

Actually, I didn't mean to have a point with that, but there probably
needs to be some protocol for sealing off topics as unanswerable.  ie:
I want to know *why* you think your editor rules, not that you do and
think mine sucks.

-- 
Richard Clamp <richardc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>