[Chicago] Collaborative Editors, was Re: code review tools

Andrew Wilson andrew at humanized.com
Fri Aug 17 18:14:04 CEST 2007


Soory to take so long, and hope it's not too far off topic. I did write
something up on how our use of MoonEdit changed:

http://www.humanized.com/weblog/2007/08/16/moonedit-redux/

Enjoy!
-- Andrew

On 7/24/07, Andrew Wilson <andrew at humanized.com> wrote:
>
> Luke:
>
> You ask a very interesting question. So interesting that I'm working up a
> "MoonEdit: Redux" article for our blog. I'll post a link here when I'm
> done.
>
> -- Andrew
>
>
> On 7/24/07, Luke Opperman <loppear at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > (Aside to Andrew/Atul: a year+ after that posting, do you still make a
> > lot of use of collaborative editing for recording group talk and
> > crystallizing it into more cohesive documents?)
> >
> > [Typos cleaned up, obvious asides removed.]
> >
> > 12:35 PM  me: this post that Andrew just pointed out on the chipy list
> > is a good summary/direction from our "how do we *talk* better"
> > conversations back at textura.
> > http://www.humanized.com/weblog/2006/04/19/moonedit_to_the_rescue/
> > ------------------------------
> > 17 minutes12:53 PM  Chad:I'd have to try it. I like the idea of multiple
> > inputs into a computer. But shared editing seems, i don't know. I wonder if
> > the key to moonedit is the search and editing features or its collaborative
> > nature or if the concurrent editing is really the key. But good stuff.
> > ------------------------------
> > 10 minutes1:05 PM  me: i have a notion of unix "talk" with the
> > separating line removed... our chats here often take on that
> > write-respond-rewrite flow, but without the ability to actually go back and
> > edit - whereas talk had the opposite problem of showing revision clearly but
> > not showing history. see also, the use of ^H written out to represent
> > explicit rethought.
> > 1:09 PM perhaps novel to collabedit though: having a natural third role
> > (filled by anyone not actively conversing) of editing the overall movement
> > of the conversation by choosing and arranging highlights as they occur or
> > are recognized.
> > ------------------------------
> > 7 minutes1:16 PM  me: also clearly addresses the space i'm curious to
> > fill in a lot of our maillist / groups threaded discussions, where it's easy
> > to lose sight of the larger picture as we snip bits to reply to and follow
> > sub-thoughts. real-time wiki collaboration with the persistence / time-delay
> > that a smooth transition between chat and email provides.
> >
> >  ------------------------------
> > 39 minutes 1:58 PM Chad: third role seems interesting. we'll call it
> > copy editor as that is the closest real world equivalent I think.
> > ------------------------------
> > 12 minutes2:11 PM  Chad: I agree about the need to transition things
> > easier. chat -> email -> wiki or just publishing chats or email threads like
> > you can a google notebook. A research file or something like when writing a
> > paper or book. You have notes. And interviews. And biblo info.
> >   Maybe people just need to hire more editors. =)
> > ------------------------------
> > 21 minutes 2:32 PM  me: publishing chats/emails brings up the
> > unavoidable question of how we'll deal with permission - not all that
> > naturally handled today with single-author, only implicit broad strokes for
> > multi-author.
> > 2:33 PM say I want to publish this chat session as a response to the
> > Chipy post that started it.
> > 2:35 PM or more likely, want to lightly edit it first. what conventions
> > or encoding of intent improves on explicit requests-per-document, which
> > might work with a two person chat but presumably scales miserably.
> > 2:36 PM Creative Commons gives a good start at the language for talking
> > about redistribution and derivative works etc
> > 2:40 PM so the top-level shift is in realizing that all the various
> > pieces that make up my daily content-stream should be versioned, should be
> > publishable, should be permissionable. (and that part of my content-stream
> > is the recursively-meta-information about what I'm reading, who I'm talking
> > to, when I published something...)
> > 2:43 PM Chad :I think the permissions might be deducible(sp) based on
> > context. Everything from the Chipy article is ok. But I'd like to block the
> > segue into personal or side notes as part of conversation.
> > 2:45 PM But then again, maybe it is just a multi-layered chat. topic in
> > black, tangent in green. I personally like to leave the subject vague and
> > ambiguous but that's just for fun. Personal comments in red.
> > 2:47 PM me : right, that's the slight editing I'm talking about. and
> > yeah, it could probably be deducible with minimal input, coding (as you say,
> > by color), or perhaps if there were a side channel to create stronger
> > replying-to-linkages (contextual theme-tagging?)
> > 2:48 PM cf an extension of irc's "name:" prefixing to identify
> > sub-threads.
> > 2:49 PM Chad : yeah, I like the irc level with software support.
> > 2:51 PM  me: alternatively, a lot of this problem might go away if the
> > context is more explicit in collaborative editing, in that we'd be having
> > the "brainstorm about collaborative editing" thread in a document that
> > started there, and still have our personal chat clearly personal. another
> > parallel, the side-channel irc chats alongside a more formal presentation or
> > talk.
> > 2:52 PM ie, perhaps this is all a side-effect of the flaws of just-email
> > or just-chat.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Chicago mailing list
> > Chicago at python.org
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/chicago
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/chicago/attachments/20070817/db9706ae/attachment.html 


More information about the Chicago mailing list