in reply to Re^2: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)
in thread Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical?

I included the reasons behind my opinion in hopes of either hearing opposing reasons or pursuading those with opposing opinions.

I would have thought my reasoning to be self-evident, but perhaps that's a blind spot on my part. When deciding how to categorize (or recategorize) a post, I find that it helps to have a simple rule.

Is the post substantially about either the mechanisms or the overt policies of Perlmonks?
is the simplest, least ambiguous rule I could come up with. Perhaps it's too simple. But the more complex the rule set, the greater the likelihood of meta-argument. We don't have a category for meta-argument. :)

  • Comment on Re: Re^2: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Are "PM Discussions" only to be technical? (reason)
by tye (Sage) on May 02, 2003 at 14:41 UTC

    Ah, yes. I guess I don't see your rule as simpler. My rule is "Is the post substantially about PerlMonks?". (:

                    - tye