To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 12835
12834  |  12836
Subject: 
Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general
Date: 
Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:20:28 GMT
Viewed: 
75 times
  
In lugnet.market.jambalaya, Larry Pieniazek writes:

Maybe some more randomization is needed. Maybe we need to swirl all the
lists around so that all the boxes go around in different orders.

Probably not a solution for all the boxes (maybe a couple of them?) but
how about a dynamic list rather than a static one. Rather than sending
the box to whoever first expressed interest 6 months ago, send it to
whoever replies first to a post saying it's ready to move on. This would
also solve the problem of lack of updates and hopefully cut down on the
number of boxes going to people who don't have time to deal with them
"now" but will "soon".

One options would be to limit the pool of possible recipients to those
who are already on the waiting list (at least until we're caught up).

It's not a perfect answer, in part because it reduces the chances of
people who don't have time to stay caught up in the group all the time.
But I think having at least a couple boxes work this way would speed
things up and give newbies a chance to get involved right away.

Doug



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
 
(...) OOOOhhh.. I like that idea! (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)
  Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
 
I think this email update idea is terrible. Some people might not be at their computer that moment the availability is posted. It will lead to box sniping. I think we should just be stuck with the list as it is (fcfs). Maybe email the next recipient (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Calling for Box Status and New Rule to vote on
 
(...) I agree. Your proposed rule doesn't address the problem, though, which I see as this: We did things first come first served. That's usually fair. But in this case, what it resulted in was the following: Person A discovered this thing. Person A (...) (25 years ago, 30-Dec-99, to lugnet.market.jambalaya, lugnet.general)

25 Messages in This Thread:










Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR