Subject:
|
Re: Meta discussion about guidance
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 17:44:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> Basically I think there's a point at where things have veered far enough off
> topic that they no longer belong in a theme group. For instance anything
> solely market related. Original guidance, since it's for the edification of
> other readers of the theme group, (so they see by example what's OK... we
> always have newbies that need help understanding the norms) is not off topic.
>
> It *is* perfectly legitimate and reasonable to question or build consensus
> around the nature of guidance but I see that as not on topic for the theme
> group. It ought to be taken elsewhere in my view.
Absolutely. Consensus arrives by discussion and that should not be done in
a theme group.
>
> ( Note that what I saw Bram doing was not questioning or building consensus.
> I may have read it wrong but I did see a big difference between what he said
> and "thanks for the tip". In my view at the time it was bucking, pure and
> simple, and not in a bantering way. He's subsequently clarified. I'm
> satisfied with that and I'm also satisfied with his clarification of his
> remark about guidance which easily reads as generally anti. I no longer
> think he is opposed to guidance as a concept. )
>
> Currently that elsewhere (the place to have meta discussion about guidance),
> in my view, is admin.general... note that I think I've shifted my perception
> of admin.general a bit from it's original construal. It's no longer a place
> to "ask the admins to do something", at least not for the most part. It's
> just a place to talk about general admin-ish issues. Presumably for the most
> part the hope is the admins are just reading along going "yep, no need for
> any comment by us, this issue is working itself along nicely, let it percolate".
>
> I'd wish the elsewhere was somewhere else to reduce traffic here and because
> of the connotation that this group carries of "calling in the muscle".
> Maybe. I'm not sure.
This is a very good idea. New admin group for discussion of policies and
principles, where .admin.general posts concerning the 'hashing' out of these
things would be off-topic.
> Further I think once a consensus on what ought or ought not to be done
> (about a particular guidance or whether it was good or bad guidance) has
> been reached it is perfectly OK (good, even) for someone to followup, with a
> summary of the consensus reached, back to the theme group. But I just don't
> see having the entire thing there in the theme group as constructive. Maybe
> I'm wrong. I dunno.
I also have an aversion to going back to the theme grp where issues
originated and saying 'here's what we agreed on.' Could reincite the same
issue and really is off-topic for the grp to begin with.
Maybe we have a read-only group, or add the consensus the policies, where we
can point future transgressions and say, 'go read this to understand the
guiding principle we set up, maybe you should rethink your posts' and leave
it at that, no need to repost consensus in themes.
>
> So, did I send this to admin.general too fast? Not in my view. As soon as
> it went meta it was off topic. Could I have done a better job of wording the
> third message (the one that sent it here)? Maybe. If someone wants to
> suggest a wording (assuming that they agree that getting it out of the theme
> group is the right way to go) I'd be glad to hear it.
>
> Oh, and David K.: I usually just don't get your analogies but you're not a
> TM counter... not by any means... I realise you're trying as hard as I am
> and appreciate the common ground we have.
Thanks Larry. You keep doing what you do and don't listen to the naysayers,
or at least, don't let them get to you.
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Meta discussion about guidance
|
| (...) Rather than my usual intersperse, I'll just provide my current thoughts on the subject. I sort of disagree that there is no difference between guidance and discussion of guidance. Basically I think there's a point at where things have veered (...) (22 years ago, 4-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
