Re: "unofficial GOP proposal" organization of GLISS discussions

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 02:43:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
>> Marc Hohl <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > Am 05.10.2012 18:34, schrieb Janek Warchoł:
>> >
>> >> i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions.  I've also
>> >> heard that the amount of technical details, digressions and
>> >> "multithreadedness" stops some people from participating, as they
>> >> don't have enough time to read long conversations carefully.
>> 
>> I would want to venture the opinion that there is no substitute for
>> reading a conversation before putting forward an opinion.
>
> That's why I organized GOP the way I did.  Important proposals are
> specially marked; the matter is summarized and relevant history is
> given.  I do not assume that the reader has read anything other
> than the proposal (they occasionally may include links to
> particularly relevant emails).  This is vital for a team of people
> as "sparse" (in terms of available time) as lilypond.
>
> A general development mailing list will not have everybody reading
> everything.

Do you think more people read the GOP proposals off-list?  I have the
suspicion that the cure is doing more for addressing the perception of
the problem than the problem itself, a lack of people both qualified and
interested in discussing long-term planning.  It might just put the
discussion somewhere where nobody will stumble over it accidentally.

No, I have nothing better to propose.

>> >> On the other hand, if we discuss our *problems*, syntax experts
>> >> can just answer "it would be reasonable to solve it this or that
>> >> way" - and voila! less frustration.
>> 
>> I don't see the point in discussing discussing all too much.  It
>> spends time and does not really lead anywhere.
>
> I agree that unstructured discussions are a disaster for
> productive work.

I should really try to refrain from mincing words in a manner where
nobody but myself gets what I mean with them.  "I don't see the point in
discussing discussing" was not a typo, and it is different from "I don't
see the point in discussing".  Like with code changes, I don't see that
we can really prestructure discussions extensively since we have no
abundance of resources to streamline into channels.  It's like trying to
figure out the best way to build a drainage system in the desert.

> I think the development list should only contain structured
> discussions on concrete proposals; it's too easy for people fall into
> a trap of thinking that talking about lilypond is the same thing as
> working on lilypond.

But will prohibiting to talk about LilyPond increase the motivation to
work on LilyPond?

> Unfortunately some people wanted to keep [talk] messages on -devel
> instead of sending them elsewhere, so we're in this predictable
> state.

I don't see overwhelming consensus about your analysis of what is
supposed to be the problem, its degree, and its proposed cure.

-- 
David Kastrup