Personal views/filters (summaries) for discussions
I find it really hard to track proposals, ideas and various deviations in mailing lists, which is especially actual for lists such as python-ideas. I bet other people experience this problem too. The typical scenario: 1. You make a proposal 2. The discussion continues 3. Part of the discussion is hijacked 4. Another part brings the problem you haven't seen 5. You don't have time to investigate the problem 6. Discussion continues 7. Thread quickly gets out of scope of daily emails 8. Contact lost Several week later you remember about the proposal: 9. You open the original proposal to notice a small novel 10. You start to reread 11. Got confused 13. Recall the details 14, Find a way out from irrelevant deviation 15. Encounter the problem 16. Spend what is left to investigate the problem 17. Run out of time The major problem I have is steps 9-15. Sometimes these take the most of the time. What would help to make all the collaboration here more productive are colored view/filters (summaries) for discussions. It would work like so: 00. The discussion is laid out as a single page 01. You define some aspect of discussion (name the filter) 02. You mark text related to the aspect 03. You save the markings. 04. You insert summaries and TODOs 05. Now you select the aspect 06. Irrelevant parts are grayed out 07. Additionally you can collapse grayed sections An ability to edit and enhance these filters will allow to devote a small bits of free time to analyze and summarize the discussion state instead of requiring a single big piece to reread the whole discussion. This way you can split the task of dealing with complexity over time, which I think is more than actual nowadays. IMO this process can be very beneficial for Python development. -- anatoly t.
On 4/28/2013 11:37 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
An ability to edit and enhance these filters will allow to devote a small bits of free time to analyze and summarize the discussion state instead of requiring a single big piece to reread the whole discussion.
This way you can split the task of dealing with complexity over time, which I think is more than actual nowadays. IMO this process can be very beneficial for Python development. -- anatoly t.
Anatoly, there are dozens if not hundreds of collaboration tools. Each implements a particular model of how people will work together, and each has its proponents and detractors. Large projects like CPython use mailing lists because email is an established platform-agnostic technology that everyone has access to. It's not fancy, and there are issues like top vs bottom posting; people quoting too much, or not enough; threads being derailed; etc. But human communication is inherently messy and difficult. I very much doubt that any structured tool would find wide acceptance, or would significantly change the dynamics of our discussions together. People are difficult: they all think differently, in different languages, on different time scales, in different time zones. An idea I think is obviously good, you may think is obviously bad. Getting to the heart of how two reasonable people can disagree so starkly is difficult work. No amount of workflow is going to make it easier. Don't invest in collaboration tools. Invest in understanding people. Proposing changes to Python is difficult. There are many people who need convincing, and convincing them takes time. They will have objections that have to be addressed, and it may be difficult to understand their objections. The original proposal may have been unclear, and you have to work to figure out what was obvious to you that has to be spelled out, and then spell it out. This is all a lot of work, and it takes a lot of time. I don't see a way around that. If someone understood the entire discussion well enough to apply filters, etc, then we'd already have reached an agreement. I don't know how much appetite the Python-ideas list will have for further discussions of these ideas. Feel free to write to me off-list if you like. --Ned.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Ned Batchelder writes:
I don't see a way around that. If someone understood the entire discussion well enough to apply filters, etc, then we'd already have reached an agreement.
+1 Almost a tautology, but even so a crucial insight.
I don't know how much appetite the Python-ideas list will have for further discussions of these ideas.
It's really off-topic. Python-ideas is for proposals to change Python (the language) or cpython (or other implementations) that aren't concrete enough or are too bike-sheddable to belong on python-dev. If he were to write such a tool in Python and ask for advice, Oleg would show up and tell him to ask on python-list. :-) If he had a specific proposal to adopt an existing workflow tool that could be just plugged in, that would be on-topic (for lack of an open- subscription python-cabal list).[1] Footnotes: [1] open-cabal is an oxymoron, of course. And TINC. Of course. ;-)
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org>wrote:
If he had a specific proposal to adopt an existing workflow tool that could be just plugged in, that would be on-topic (for lack of an open- subscription python-cabal list).[1]
Oh no - the day is lost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal - it's a whole new English wor(l)d. AOT: I'd open a Python-Cabal room in my city to work out on secret plans like online editor for docs.python.org. Footnotes:
[1] open-cabal is an oxymoron, of course. And TINC. Of course. ;-)
TINCerers are lurking in the depths of strictly secret pydotorg list. =)
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 7:35 PM, Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com>wrote:
If someone understood the entire discussion well enough to apply filters, etc, then we'd already have reached an agreement.
Perfect summary. Starting from this point, the problem I am trying to solve is to share this line of coming to agreement with the other people. The process of writing summaries or repeating previous arguments to find out if a consensus is reached is very exhausting. If in real life I can see a person and associate his position with his image, in the mailing list it is just a continuous and contradictory flow of information where you can not track people state. The role of filter or any other tool is thus two fold: 1. track and name aspects of discussed topic 2. track people positions related to these aspect to find out if you understand their objections I am not saying that mailing lists should be replaced, but perhaps somebody know a parallel tool (or process) to help with this stuff. I once used piratepad in hope to write summaries and track important/big topics, but copy/paste takes a lot of time, and it is very hard to track multiple aspects in parallel in a single pad or in multiple pads. It might be convenient if used collaboratively, but again - before a proper remote collaboration practice could be developed, a experimental period of testing this process in a teamwork is required. Anti Off-Topic: This can be considered an idea for improvement of PEP process (in addition to the idea of providing a feedback channel on PEP pages). -- anatoly t.
On 4/28/2013 11:37 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
I find it really hard to track proposals, ideas and various deviations in mailing lists, which is especially actual for lists such as python-ideas. I bet other people experience this problem too. The typical scenario:
1. You make a proposal 2. The discussion continues 3. Part of the discussion is hijacked 4. Another part brings the problem you haven't seen 5. You don't have time to investigate the problem 6. Discussion continues 7. Thread quickly gets out of scope of daily emails 8. Contact lost
Several week later you remember about the proposal:
9. You open the original proposal to notice a small novel 10. You start to reread 11. Got confused 13. Recall the details 14, Find a way out from irrelevant deviation 15. Encounter the problem 16. Spend what is left to investigate the problem 17. Run out of time
The major problem I have is steps 9-15. Sometimes these take the most of the time. What would help to make all the collaboration here more productive are colored view/filters (summaries) for discussions. It would work like so:
00. The discussion is laid out as a single page
This is what the PEP process is about. Anyone can summarize a idea as a proto-pep either initially or after preliminary discussion. Objections and unresolved issues are part of a pep. Revisions and reposting are part of the process.
01. You define some aspect of discussion (name the filter) 02. You mark text related to the aspect 03. You save the markings. 04. You insert summaries and TODOs
05. Now you select the aspect 06. Irrelevant parts are grayed out 07. Additionally you can collapse grayed sections
An ability to edit and enhance these filters will allow to devote a small bits of free time to analyze and summarize the discussion state instead of requiring a single big piece to reread the whole discussion.
This way you can split the task of dealing with complexity over time, which I think is more than actual nowadays. IMO this process can be very beneficial for Python development. -- anatoly t.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
On 4/28/2013 11:37 AM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
I find it really hard to track proposals, ideas and various deviations in mailing lists, which is especially actual for lists such as python-ideas. I bet other people experience this problem too. The typical scenario:
1. You make a proposal 2. The discussion continues 3. Part of the discussion is hijacked 4. Another part brings the problem you haven't seen 5. You don't have time to investigate the problem 6. Discussion continues 7. Thread quickly gets out of scope of daily emails 8. Contact lost
Several week later you remember about the proposal:
9. You open the original proposal to notice a small novel 10. You start to reread 11. Got confused 13. Recall the details 14, Find a way out from irrelevant deviation 15. Encounter the problem 16. Spend what is left to investigate the problem 17. Run out of time
The major problem I have is steps 9-15. Sometimes these take the most of the time. What would help to make all the collaboration here more productive are colored view/filters (summaries) for discussions. It would work like so:
00. The discussion is laid out as a single page
This is what the PEP process is about. Anyone can summarize a idea as a proto-pep either initially or after preliminary discussion. Objections and unresolved issues are part of a pep. Revisions and reposting are part of the process.
I thought about writing PEPs, but my CPU cycles and Memory are too limited to support current PEP process. I'd be happy to run a Stackless version of it, which can be paralleled, suspended or resumed on a different humanware. -- anatoly t.
anatoly techtonik writes:
I thought about writing PEPs, but my CPU cycles and Memory are too limited to support current PEP process. I'd be happy to run a Stackless version of it, which can be paralleled, suspended or resumed on a different humanware.
There are multiple examples of all of the above in the current stack.
On May 1, 2013, at 6:35, "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> wrote:
anatoly techtonik writes:
I thought about writing PEPs, but my CPU cycles and Memory are too limited to support current PEP process. I'd be happy to run a Stackless version of it, which can be paralleled, suspended or resumed on a different humanware.
There are multiple examples of all of the above in the current stack.
And, since a PEP is basically just a text file with some very simple formatting, if you want to collaborate with one or more other people, almost any collaboration system you want will work fine.
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
participants (5)
-
anatoly techtonik -
Andrew Barnert -
Ned Batchelder -
Stephen J. Turnbull -
Terry Jan Reedy