Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research

by jepri (Parson)
on Nov 14, 2000 at 20:50 UTC ( #41594=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research

Gaahhh! Why rules? Why not just point people at the threads concerned and let them make up their own minds on the matter. Are you afraid they won't come to your three conclusions? Tell them to read these threads instead:

Java vs. Perl from the CB (no CB log included)
Who owns your words? A resolution is needed.

____________________
Jeremy
Koans. Thats what we need. More koans.


Comment on RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
RE: RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by jptxs (Curate) on Nov 14, 2000 at 21:40 UTC

    they are NOT rules. I even said so in the post. They are at best guidelines. And the reason for this post is so that whenever this may come up again someone can point to one place where the thoughts expressed are summed up neatly and unambiguously. One of the root causes of the problem here is that no one was sure what, if anything, had been agreed on. there had been previous discussions that had not reached any sort of conclusion at all and left some feeling one thing and other something completely contrary. I just one one place that anymonk can point to and say "Last time logging the chatterbox came up everybody decided X".

    so jepri, do the above guidelines seem to sum up what everyone agreed to in the other threads thus far? if you think they do, cool. if not, what's missing? I'm trying to be constructive here...

    <myExperience> $mostLanguages = 'Designed for engineers by engineers.'; $perl = 'Designed for people who speak by a linguist.'; </myExperience>
      You said everything but that they are rules. You ask three times for an agreement, then you suggest that these "guidlines" actually become (quote)standards(unquote).

      What's more you know damn well that if you point things in a bulleted list a whole bunch of people will refer to them as the rules.

      I just one one place that anymonk can point to and say "Last time logging the chatterbox came up everybody decided X".

      That's exactly what I'm worried about.

      This is a good thread to read as well:

      24Hr log of chatterbox

      Update: Instead of a "guidelines" with glib comments why don't you make a significant threads list. That way people can read the threads for themselves and see the community in action. You've decided that a guidelines list is the way to go and you're determined to ram it through. I made a perfectly good suggestion that we refer people to threads rather than giving them a list of rules -sorry- guidelines to agree while they are here.

      Update II: I guess I'm being unreasonable expecting people to read whole threads. But I'll put any others I find here just in case.

      ____________________
      Jeremy
      Hack the planet with Physics++

        : ) jepri. Pal. Brother. The whole reason I'm starting this thread is to try and stop the animosity. And I bear none toward you. You think they look like rules, fine. I conceed there is that interpretation. My question to you, to everymonk, is do these three points capture what has been said in all the prvious threads pretty well. I have read all the threads. I have read most of them several times. I have been agonizing over this whole thing. I just want it to end at this point. I do not know why you are worried about setting some sort of standard. If you read through many of the posts that you are pointing out to me, many of them are saying we should come up with one. In fact, one of the threads asks for a resolution in the title! : ) Please. Put aside the rule fear. Look at the three points. Think about what they are saying. Are what they are saying close to the general consensus that was reached in the other discussions. I think so. You even ask if I'm afraid people won't come to the same conclusion - sarcasm, no doubt, pointing out that they would and reasonably should.

        <myExperience> $mostLanguages = 'Designed for engineers by engineers.'; $perl = 'Designed for people who speak by a linguist.'; </myExperience>
RE: RE: No CB comment is serious, and should not be reproduced in a node without research
by amelinda (Friar) on Nov 15, 2000 at 00:55 UTC
    jptxs and you seem to have already agreed to call them guidelines, so I will only say: in reality, this is a benevolent dictatorship, since vroom runs it and can do with it as he wills, but other than that, there can be no 'rules,' only guidelines that people can follow or not. Why are they guidelines? Because we, the users, don't have a lot of ways to really enforce them.

    As for your suggestion of pointing people at threads, I'm not in favor of it. Why? Because of conciseness. If it's in the FAQ, it's really easy to point at, instead of pointing at fifteen different threads. Also, new people are far more likely to read only what's in the FAQ or the Guide to the Monastery or the "Need Help??" link at the top of the page than scroll through some fairly lengthy threads full of perlmonks politics that they know nothing about yet.

    Of course, that would require some kind of consensus, which you seem adamantly opposed to. Unfortunately for you, it seems that a majority of the vocal people believe that a consensus is, in fact, needed. I agree with them. No matter what that consensus is, we seem to be headed only to further miscommunication and unpleasantness until we have some idea of what is expected in our interactions through PM1.

    1 I could go on a long rant about sociology here, but I'll limit myself to: what else are mores, taboos, and other unspoken social rules but these types of guidelines? The fact that you (and everyone else) was brought up thoroughly indoctrinated2 into some of these social rules does not mean that they are not the product of social consensus. Far, far better that we state them explicitly than that people try (and fail) to apply their internal consensus, as we are not all the same person.

    2 Ooooh, I get burn-in-hell points for that one!

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://41594]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (6)
As of 2014-07-31 07:46 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My favorite superfluous repetitious redundant duplicative phrase is:









    Results (245 votes), past polls