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

[Paul Mison <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/07/2001 at 01:37 +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
>Simon Wistow wrote as scr-admin:

>...bridges can be computery.

And you can geek over them (cf NY).

>> 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.

Apparently Dave suggested Senior Common Room. You know, like in those
posh universities I never went to.

>> 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.

It seems language-dev isn't. I'm uncomfortable with invite-only lists,
too. It's elitism. See below. See also the six ages of a mailing list
thing: there are two ways a list can end up. I think the 'strictly on
topic' is setting it up to end up as a 6.1 list, whereas (void) is 6.2,
and I know which I'd rather be on. (BBEdit-talk is more 6.1, and it's
pretty horrible to watch people who don't know better get slapped.)

Damn, can't find the URL now. We used it on Wednesday or so, though, so
Simon should have it handy somewhere.

>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.

A particularly good example. It happens all the time on (void). (And,
indeed, it goes the other way, too. But how do you deal with that? It
might, concievably, go *back* on topic. Best just to leave it.)

>> 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's my conclusion too. For what it's worth.

>> 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.

> [Possible solution]
>
>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.

What *is* the problem? Is it that (void) goes off-topic? Is it really
that much of a problem? We've all posted to off-topic threads. (Even
Richard...)

Is it something else? What?

(I'm sorry, Thursday is a bit of a blur. And even though I was there, I
think I was gazing wistfully out to the Thames at this point. And
drinking. Don't forget drinking.)

As I've often said, although I was sort of forced into it, there's two
ways of looking at this. You have lists like (void) which go through
the, for want of a better candidate, Vicky McD / frank&dean fuckup,
learn to deal with it, and are still busy and yet have a nice
community, or you have haddocks, which are confronted by the open net
population, shrink, regroup, and become elitist. I know I've not had
the choice, but my socialist instincts go for part one. (Just to chuck
in the obpolitics.)

>> 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!

Ho ho ho.

>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.

I touched on this earlier, I think. It's like Lee Goddard's post to
london.pm (list): 'Oh, I dont' like XP, and I don't suppose you care
why' which I almost flamed ('Either tell us why, or don't fucking
mention it at all'), but Dave Cross stepped in and replied much more
nicely.

Ah, this has been utterly nonlinear too. And I've been listening to
Radiohead. So take this with a pinch of bitterness. (General,
non-focussed, of course.)

--
:: paul
:: what are the military applications?