Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, ...
I read this thread over the past couple of days. It's only today that,
having thought about it, an objection occurred to me. I've no problem
with people summarizing threads, but with this bit:
The summaries
Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, ...
I read this thread over the past couple of days. It's only today that,
having thought about it, an objection occurred to me. I've no problem
with people summarizing
to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most
people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc.
One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be
Discussion: Foo feature
Want it:Person A, Person B, Person C, Person D
Reject it: Person E,
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Murat_=DCnalan?= [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:21:11 +0100
to provide a feeling for the weight of opinion, e.g., most
people felt this way, some people felt differently, etc.
One should trace back who was of what opinion. So my suggestion would be
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an idea,
writes a summary
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
The idea of discussion summaries has been well received, so I'm going to
push forward with a few. I invite everyone here to join in.
The idea is *not* that Miko writes summaries of every thread. The idea is
that the proponent of an idea, or someone very interested in an
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
You suggest doing it in HTML. Wouldn't it make more sense to do it in
POD, the standard documentation language for Perl?
For now, since it's a web site, let's stick to HTML. If somebody just way
prefers POD, contact me off list and we'll figure out the
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
re-open the RFC process?
RFC's are proposals before the comments.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, Buddha Buck wrote:
You are aware the that RFCs went through a revision process, and the
finalized RFCs that the Design Team are looking at are supposed to
include the final form of the idea after discussion, and a summary of
what was thought of it? Many of the RFCs
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features in Perl are useful, to
: Language Discussion Summaries
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:56:34AM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
And how do these differ in concept to the RFC process Perl 6 has
already
gone through? Wouldn't it make sense, assuming that clean, final
presentations of proposed ideas or features
SUMMARY
Members of the Perl6 Language list produce summaries discussions of
proposed features of the Perl6 language. These summaries will improve the
signal to noise ratio for Larry and his lieutenants as they try to keep up
with feelings in the list. See http://www.idocs.com/perl6/ for the
Thats a great idea.
Murat
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries
of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea
feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea.
Different opinions will be presented. The
Allison Randal [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Miko O'Sullivan wrote:
Therefore, I propose that members of the language list provide summaries
of the discussions in the group. Each summary describes a proposed idea
feature of the language, then summarizes the list's feelings on the idea.
15 matches
Mail list logo
