Hi Logan, Thanks for picking up the ball. My comments:
1. I agree, bi-weekly meetings would probably work better, at least for me. 2. marvin++. Maybe we could encourage *every* member of the book club to lead at least one meeting? I'm game for that. 3. I'm in for finishing the Drepper paper on April 2nd. One of Marvin's admirable qualities was coming up with a list of review questions when the text didn't provide them. Does anyone want to volunteer for this? 4. I would go for anything on the current list. Perhaps we could set aside some time at our next meeting to discuss what we want to get out of future book club sessions, which would help us decide what to read next? - Kurt On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Logan Bell <[email protected]> wrote: > Book Clubbers et al, > > I just wanted to start a thread regarding where we want to take the book > club. I know personally I have gained significantly from this meeting and > would love to continue this meeting if others are so inclined. > > Here are some of my observations. > > 1. Weekly meetings might have been a little much to sustain. Perhaps going > with bi-weekly. I would actually probably be fine with weekly if the > reading material wasn't as dense, since I think a weekly meeting keeps the > club's momentum up. What do others think? I'm personally divided on this > particular point. > > 2. Marvin did most of the heavy lifting, which was actually very impressive > considering the breadth of the material covered. Perhaps going forward it > would be good to have others volunteer to lead a sessions. > > 3. Would love to finish the Drepper paper. If others are interested I would > propose we restart the meeting April 2nd. I would also have a set of > questions ready to cover prior to this time. > > 4. We also have a list of potential future books: > http://wiki.apache.org/lucy/LucyBookClub#Possible_Future_Books. It would > be > great for others to chime in what they find interesting. I personally would > love to read any of them in a group setting. FWIW, I have read parts of > Managing Gigabytes and Information Retrieval, both would be excellent > choices. The latter would perhaps be more relevant since I believe it's > more recent. > > So what does the community say? Do we have others that are interested in > keeping this alive? > > Thanks, > Logan >
