Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 02:43:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 05.10.2012 18:34, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions. I've also
heard that the amount of
Hi,
some clarification:
Most importantly, i'm not saying that we should *force* separating
discussions about problems from discussions about solutions. What i
mean is to have a different approach than we had till now.
An example of what i consider an ineffective way of discussing:
personA:
Am 05.10.2012 18:34, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
Hi all,
i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions. I've also heard
that the amount of technical details, digressions and
multithreadedness stops some people from participating, as they
don't have enough time to read long conversations
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 05.10.2012 18:34, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions. I've also
heard that the amount of technical details, digressions and
multithreadedness stops some people from participating, as they
don't have enough time
On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 02:43:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
Marc Hohl m...@hohlart.de writes:
Am 05.10.2012 18:34, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions. I've also
heard that the amount of technical details, digressions and
multithreadedness
Hi all,
i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions. I've also heard
that the amount of technical details, digressions and
multithreadedness stops some people from participating, as they
don't have enough time to read long conversations carefully.
Therefore i suggest to visibly
