There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the attention that they deserve.

Cheers
Brad

"Brad Beveridge" <brad@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:d46one$1htf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way
> across interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the
> grounds that the discussion could go no further without input from
> Walter.
> From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would
> be nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have
> decided that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone
> calls a Walter Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the
> title changed to "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we
> would eagerly await a response.  Thre NG would need to be careful,
> and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted
> ourselves.  Would this reduce the number of posts that Walter
> needs to pay attention to?

I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".

Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be abused.

Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing it).

>  I get the feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG
> don't get the attention that they deserve.

I'm sure you're right.


I've considered writing formal-ish language proposals for a good while, but I just don't have enough faith that it'll be worth my effort to do so. I keep meaning to test the water with a little one, but that old time's a factor. ;/

> I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
> 
> Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be abused.
> 
> Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing it).
OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones able to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some number (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from the top of my head, should be
Matthew
Georg Wrede
Ben Hinkle
Regan Heath
Anders
Derek

If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG the WWI won't be called.

> I've considered writing formal-ish language proposals for a good while, but I just don't have enough faith that it'll be worth my effort to do so. I keep meaning to test the water with a little one, but that old time's a factor. ;/

That is also a good idea - but will Walter notice it?

Brad

Brad Beveridge wrote:
> There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
>  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the attention that they deserve.

A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly before "callin on Walter".

Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly respected" people to do the summaries.

Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".

Great idea, in my opinion, but much easier said than elegantly done.

Here's a related idea that I started in another newsgroup a long time ago, which has been successfully in use ever since...

Adopt the "[]" characters as a stylistic way of categorizing a post in it's subject.

For examplem, if a post is about a possible bug,
then include [bug] in the subject.

In this same way, you could specifically call any one person's attention to a post by including their name in the same way.

This would allow Walter to run a search for subjects with "[Walter]" in them to find threads where someone felt it warranted to call his attention to what was being said, and if anyone abuses it... he could quickly learn to pay less attention to that particular person calling him by name in that way.

Son suggested topic keywords would be:
[bug] for possible bugs
[DMD v0.120] for things related specifically to version 0.120 of DMD.
[question] if you are looking for information or answers.
[idea] for thoughts that you would like to have discussed.
[suggestion] for ideas that you feel are aready to be considered for implementation.
[important] as a general allert that you think it is critical that people read it.
[everyone] for posts that you think everyone in the group can benefit from reading.
Etcetera.

Of course, usage would be strictly stylistic and subject to the opinion of the author.  That way, the tags can evolve as time goes on.

I would aslo recommend that if such subject tags are added to an existing "reply" subject, that they be added in front of it, to distinguish them from ones that were simply passed down.

Furthermore, it would be good style to remove them from replies when you feel they don't apply to the reply... in order to reduce the number of matches to a specific search.

TZ

"Brad Beveridge" <brad@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:d46one$1htf$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across
> interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the
> discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
>  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
> nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided
> that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
> Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
> "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
> response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
> of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
> the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
> feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
> attention that they deserve.
>
> Cheers
> Brad

Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of this thread.  Except that anyone could do a summary, and simply include [summary] in the subject, so that it can be searched for.

The fact that anyone can do it, means you aren't restricted to one person's opinion... and it wouldn't take long for Walter, or anyone else, to learn which people's summaries they get the most useful information out of.

TZ

"Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:4266EDE0.2020404@nospam.org...
> Brad Beveridge wrote:
> > There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way across
> > interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that the
> > discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
> >  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
> > nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have decided
> > that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
> > Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
> > "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
> > response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
> > of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
> > the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
> > feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
> > attention that they deserve.
>
> A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly before "callin on Walter".
>
> Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly respected" people to do the summaries.
>
> Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".

"Brad Beveridge" <brad@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:d46qm2$1jma$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
>>
>> Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be abused.
>>
>> Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing it).
> OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
> I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones
> able to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some
> number (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from
> the top of my head, should be
> Matthew
> Georg Wrede
> Ben Hinkle
> Regan Heath
> Anders
> Derek
>
> If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG the WWI won't be called.
>
>> I've considered writing formal-ish language proposals for a good while, but I just don't have enough faith that it'll be worth my effort to do so. I keep meaning to test the water with a little one, but that old time's a factor. ;/
>
> That is also a good idea - but will Walter notice it?

I've taken a first stab. Let's see what happens. :-)

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:04:54 +1200, Brad Beveridge <brad@somewhere.net> wrote:
>> I like it, but it's not likely to work. I think you've hit the rusty nail on the head: "Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves".
>>  Given that we often cannot even agree on how many pins you can stick in a heretic, I think it's extremely unlikely that the WWI would not be abused.
>>  Alas, I suggest the same remedy that's been mooted many many times. We need groups of people - to take responsibility for moderating discussions; for collaborating in language changes; for representing a body that actually gets Walter's attention (and keeps it by not abusing it).
> OK then, I'll be bad and name names :)
> I think that the senior members of this NG should be the only ones able to call a Walter Weigh In (WWI).  And only then when some number (three?) of them agree it is warrented.  Those people, from the top of my head, should be
> Matthew
> Georg Wrede
> Ben Hinkle
> Regan Heath
> Anders
> Derek
>
> If you guys don't put a stamp on it, then out of politeness to the NG the WWI won't be called.

Woohoo! I made the list!

Seriously though, I can think of a number of other people (not on this list) who appear to me to be quite capable of doing a good summary of issues in their own area of experience.

I am reminded of Norbert's proposal which he posted to the NG, and to Walter directly? That seemed to work. However, as has been mentioned we don't want everyone doing that(*). The method that was used then, tho informally, was something like...

An N stage process.

Stage 0: the thread/discussion here on the NG.

Stage 1: If/when it reaches the Walter input stage we have a quick vote and a person (or even 2 working together via email) is/are chosen to attempt to write an impartial objective proposal. They post the proposal back to the group with a subject of "REVIEW-1: <subject>" and a link to the original thread.

Anyone may then comment on the proposal itself. Including Walter. Clarifying any miss-representation as they see it, the original author makes changes and re-posts, "REVIEW-2: <subject>".

Repeat, until no further comments/complaints are made.

Last stage, the proposal is posted as "PROPOSAL: <subject>".

Regan

(*) Clarification, I am not implying anyone is less capable, but rather newcomers have less knowledge of D's particular methods, goals, quirks, hot-topics, etc and we want to avoid the same thing being posted all over again.

On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:09:34 -0500, TechnoZeus <TechnoZeus@PeoplePC.com> wrote:
> Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of this thread.  Except that anyone could do a summary, and simply include [summary] in the subject, so that it can be searched for.
>
> The fact that anyone can do it, means you aren't restricted to one person's opinion... and it wouldn't take long for Walter, or anyone else, to learn which people's summaries they get the most useful information out of.

A summary should contain no "opinion" at all, but rather be impartial and objective and supply any/all sides of the debate without miss-representation. Ideally. :)

Regan

> TZ
>
> "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:4266EDE0.2020404@nospam.org...
>> Brad Beveridge wrote:
>> > There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way  
>> across
>> > interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that  
>> the
>> > discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
>> >  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
>> > nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have  
>> decided
>> > that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter
>> > Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to
>> > "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a
>> > response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type
>> > of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce
>> > the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the
>> > feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the
>> > attention that they deserve.
>>
>> A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly
>> before "callin on Walter".
>>
>> Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly
>> respected" people to do the summaries.
>>
>> Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".
>
>

Ideally, yes... but in reality it never happens.  I would "ask" to anyone who will listen, that anyone who states in a summary (which is labeled as such) something that they recognize to be only their opinion, or the opinion of themselves and others but not "everyone" should try to remember to mention in the summary that it is an opinion, simply for clarity.

By the way... run a subject search for "[:=]" and another one for "[Walter]" and you will find an example of subject tags in use.  This is a tried and successful method of tagging subjects, so I see no reason why we shouldn't go ahead and use it here.

TechnoZeus

"Regan Heath" <regan@netwin.co.nz> wrote in message news:opspj3izxy23k2f5@nrage.netwin.co.nz...
> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:09:34 -0500, TechnoZeus <TechnoZeus@PeoplePC.com> wrote:
> > Actually, that goes along with a reply I just posted inanother part of this thread.  Except that anyone could do a summary, and simply include [summary] in the subject, so that it can be searched for.
> >
> > The fact that anyone can do it, means you aren't restricted to one person's opinion... and it wouldn't take long for Walter, or anyone else, to learn which people's summaries they get the most useful information out of.
>
> A summary should contain no "opinion" at all, but rather be impartial and objective and supply any/all sides of the debate without miss-representation. Ideally. :)
>
> Regan
>
> > TZ
> >
> > "Georg Wrede" <georg.wrede@nospam.org> wrote in message news:4266EDE0.2020404@nospam.org...
> >> Brad Beveridge wrote:
> >> > There have been a few threads of late that have wended their way
> >> across
> >> > interesting ground, and then have come to a stop on the grounds that
> >> the
> >> > discussion could go no further without input from Walter.
> >> >  From what I have seen, Walter hasn't yet passed comment.  It would be
> >> > nice to continue on as we have, but when sufficient people have
> >> decided
> >> > that it is time for Walter's input on a thread, someone calls a Walter Weigh In.  The thread should be summerized, and the title changed to "Walter Weigh In: Issue xxxx", where upon we would eagerly await a response.  Thre NG would need to be careful, and only invoke this type of post when we actually have exhausted ourselves.  Would this reduce the number of posts that Walter needs to pay attention to?  I get the feeling that many good and useful ideas on this NG don't get the attention that they deserve.
> >>
> >> A good idea. Although, an issue should first be discussed thoroughly before "callin on Walter".
> >>
> >> Also, (I somehow feel, that) we might have "designated" or "commonly respected" people to do the summaries.
> >>
> >> Such summaries could begin their header with "SUMMARY: blabla".
> >
> >
>