Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
more useful options
 
PerlMonks  

Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion"

by jdporter (Canon)
on Aug 21, 2009 at 21:25 UTC ( #790479=pmdevtopic: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

The idea would be to create a section, rather like Perl Monks Discussion, but which would be accessible (both read and write) only to pmdev, for the purpose of discussing ... well, anything pmdev wants to discuss internally. This is to get away from using the wiki for such discussions, since — as has been pointed out on several occasions — wikis are not a good medium for discussion. Looking at the history of wiki rollovers, it's clear that a lot more has gone on in the pmdev wiki than any other, and undoubtedly most of that volume was for discussions.

What do y'all think of this idea?

It would be pretty easy to do. The steps involved would be as follows:

1. Clone pmdevtopic into pmdevroot as a subnodetype of pmdevtopic, setting Creator=Updater=pmdev.

2. Make a pmdevroot display page like so:

<p><i> [% linkNode $$NODE{author_user}; %] has initiated the following pmde +v topic: </i></p> <p> [{parselinks:doctext}] </p> <p> [{editinvote:Your Topic}] [{shownote}] </p> <p><center> Back to [% linkNodeTitle('Pmdev Discussion') %] </center></p>

3. Make a new section superdoc like so:

[{get_sitedoclet}] [{newlistapproved:pmdevroot,perlquestion approved linktype,Pmdev Discu +ssion,15,navbaron,showall}] [{addnewform:pmdevroot,Initiate Pmdev Discussion}] [{showhints}]

4. Other ancillary things, such as adding awareness of the new section/nodetype to Newest Nodes (for pmdev only, of course).

It might be nice to name this new type "pmdevtopic", but that nodetype name is already used, by root posts of the Inner Scriptorium. We could rename that nodetype, to something like "manuscript" (in keeping with that section's name), freeing up "pmdevtopic" for the present purpose. tye says that such a renaming would take about 12 patches.

Note that the reply node type already exists: pmdevnote.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion"
by jdporter (Canon) on Dec 30, 2010 at 17:28 UTC

    Update

    The idea now is to make a generic "Create New Forum" capability. Not only would this be useful for things like group-private fora, but we'd eventually want to convert the existing sections to the new scheme.

    First and foremost, stop using distinction of nodetypes to define fora (i.e., "sections"). Instead, go to a prototype-like (i.e., Self-like) scheme, where a forum is defined by a root node. a super-root node, as it were. (Let's call it the "base" node.) An ordinary root post would be a note, whose parent is itself (or nil), but whose root is the forum base. All of the forum base nodes would be of the same (proposed new) type; they simply differ in content. The title of one could be "Seekers of Perl Wisdom", for example.

    Of course, such a change would have far-ranging implications. Super Search, for example, would be drastically impacted. But changes would, almost universally, be for the simpler.

    We also wouldn't need to create a superdoc as the "landing page" for each section. :-)

    I believe we should have group-private fora, for pmdev, janitors, gods, so that we can get discussions away from the wikis. That by itself would be enough of a win.

    So maybe we start by creating the "generic" forum scheme only for use for these known desired fora.

    The new nodetype should have a field (NULL-able) which refers to an accessrule. Actually, two: one for defining who can create a root post in the forum, and another for controlling who can read/write replies. We'd have to have a form (in a superdoc) where the properties of the new forum would be specified. The two access rules (root and reply control) could be pick lists, populated with the extant usergroups and accessrules.

     s/ $NODE->{root}{type}{title} / $NODE->{root}{root}{title} /
    What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?

      I like much of your proposal. I don't like the extra layer(s) of indirection that must be traversed every time it must be decided whether or not a user can view a node. So I'd probably actually keep the different node types for specifying different permissions, at least in the first version.

      Having personally completely implemented a replacement for both of the ugly "approval" systems we still have in place (and use simultaneously) and then repeatedly failing to get it deployed, I'd actually place tackling that mess ahead of this as I expect the wide touch of the approval process will likely make for some nice roadblocks if it isn't significantly cleaned up before.

      Even before that, how about just working on implementing "patch approval" so we have some hope of building on the recent momentum in site improvements by making pmdev work not quickly revert to the awful place it used to be so we might actually increase the number of active, useful members writing (and applying, testing, reverting!) patches?

      - tye        

        I'd probably actually keep the different node types for specifying different permissions, at least in the first version.

        Um.... ugh. That means having a proliferation of note types (as we have already started down that slope with pmdevnote). That is entirely contrary to the whole idea of "one-click forum creation".

        Perhaps an alternative would be to have a single new note derivative which contains links to access rules (by which I mean, usergroup | accessrule | NULL). This field would get populated from the values in the forum base in the note's maintenance create.

        Even before that, how about just working on ...

        Sure, man. I just wanted to capture my thoughts here. Anybody could work on this. (I'm not the only one who thinks it's a good idea of moderately high desirability.)

        What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?
      Smells like 'subreddits'.

      Seriously, I have no idea how the core of E2 works, but sometimes you bump up against a schema and other times you bump up against a codebase/model.

      Apologies for not having gone and examined the E2 code personally, but where do the constraints arise in this case?

      Cheers,
      Matt

        E2

        This is probably a minor quibble, but in the interest of precision, I'll point out that e2 is a web site, like PerlMonks; both are built on the Everything engine, albeit on different versions (0.7 and 0.8, respectively, I believe, based on what chromatic says here. Even the "latest" version of the engine is only at 1.0.)

        Smells like 'subreddits'.

        Sorry, I'm not getting the allusion.

        sometimes you bump up against a schema and other times you bump up against a codebase/model

        I might be missing your point, but I think that in the case of Everything/PerlMonks, there is no useful distinction to be made between the schema and the codebase/model. Everything lives in the database (nearly).

        Apologies for not having gone and examined the E2 code personally

        Well, imho, a pmdevil should probably start by reading the various bits of documentation we've built up, first. It can be pretty hard to deduce the architecture by looking at tiny fragments of code. (On the other hand, just trying to can be quite edifying.)

        What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?
Create new [gods]-only section "Gods Forum"
by jdporter (Canon) on Jan 04, 2011 at 17:06 UTC

    Current idea: create a gods-private section

    It has been said, many times by various people, that a wiki is not a good place to try to hold a discussion. Therefore, I propose that we set up a new section for private use by the gods.
    Technically, something similar could be done for other groups, as discussed above, but the prevailing ad hoc policy is that such groups should not be having private discussions at all, and so should use the existing section, Inner Scriptorium.

    Steps:

    1. clone pmdevtopic (nodetype) to a new root post type, godstopic.
    2. clone pmdevnote (nodetype) to a new reply type, godsnote.
    3. edit reply settings (setting) to know about the new reply type.
    4. also add an entry to reply settings so that replies to the new root post type will be the new reply type.
    5. clone Inner Scriptorium (superdoc) to a new section landing page, Gods Forum; modify it as appropriate, i.e. make it use godstopic.
    6. set appropriate permissions on all the new nodes create above.

    The assumption is that posts in this section do not count toward a user's writeups, and are not subject to moderation.

    What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others avoiding work at the Monastery: (7)
As of 2019-10-14 16:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    Notices?