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

Andrew Wilson andrew at humanized.com
Wed Jul 25 01:48:33 CEST 2007


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/20070724/cd5ab946/attachment.html 

More information about the Chicago mailing list