21-Feb-90 To: PCedarUsers^ PCedar Discussions: Please README
Date: 21 Feb 90 18:17:39 PST Sender: Kenneth A Pier:PARC:Xerox Subject: PCedar Discussions: Please README To: PCedarUsers^:PARC:Xerox Reply-To: PCedarImplementors^:PARC:Xerox
In order to facilitate decision making outside of PFUDGe meetings, we are starting the practice of PCedar Discussions. Discussions are e-mail based exchanges on a particular subject of interest for PCedar, not unlike the ones we already often have. These Discussions will be more formal in that a Discussion must have a Secretary whose job it is to facilitate their Discussion and to periodically send summaries of Discussion progress and, finally, resolution to PCedar users. It is intended that Discussions will usually result in a document or documented practice to be used, by convention, by all PCedar users. It is intended that issues raised in PFUDGe meetings that cannot be readily decided will result in a Discussion. Discussions should make some progress between meetings.
Discussions will take place on PCedarImplementors^:PARC:Xerox. Summaries and results will be sent to PCedarUsers^:PARC:Xerox. If you want to observe or participate in Discussions, get yourself on PCedarImplementors^:PARC:Xerox even if you are not strictly a PCedar implementor.
This message is the first Discussion message on PCedar Discussions; I am secretary. Please use the Answer button (or equivalent) so that replies go to PCedarImplementors^:PARC:Xerox and have "Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README" in their Subject fields. Thanks.
Expect initial Discussions on:
Torches. Pavel Curtis, secretary. Compute Servers. Peter Kessler, secretary. Moving to SunOS4.1. Jim Foote, secretary. "Last Edited" lines in PCedar files. Mike Spreitzer, secretary.
21-Feb-90 Bill Jackson Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:43:26 PST Sender: Bill Jackson:PARC:xerox Subject: Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README To: Kenneth A Pier:PARC:Xerox Cc: Bill Jackson:PARC:xerox
Ken,
Here's another out of band request.
It seems to me that a Discussion [[at any particular point in time]] should have at least a fuzzy goal. Could I convince you that this is such a great need that you would dictate that all Discussions initiations state the [[current]] goal, and that all Discussion Summaries re-state the [[current]] goal?
The alternate option for me seems to be to start a Discussion about Discussions. I'd rather avoid that.
I'd also like to observe to you that someone [[you?]] needs to ride herd over Discussions to see that they complete, or stop bothering PCedarImplementors^. Is this an unstated part of your current view of how things will go?
-bj
ps. Sorry if this seems to be bothering you. I think this stuff can me made to work, I'm trying to help have things be more (most?) effective.
22-Feb-90 Daniel C. Swinehart Personal comment Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 90 09:16:27 PST In-reply-to: "Kenneth A Pier:PARC:Xerox's message of 21 Feb 90 18:17:39 PST" Sender: Daniel C. Swinehart:PARC:Xerox Subject: Personal comment Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README To: Pier:PARC:Xerox Cc: Daniel C. Swinehart:PARC:Xerox
Good idea, although from watching Spreitzer work on his first task, it's fairly time-consuming, even for relatively trivial issues. Maybe they should be called Printing Discussions, or PDiscussions for short (P would be silent). We could have Torch Printing Discussions, Compute Server Printing Discussions, ...
Is there a mechanism for forcing consensus when none arises naturally?
Didn't really want to enter into a public meta-pdiscussion.
Delete this message before reading.
Dan
22-Feb-90 To: Bill Jackson Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README
Date: 22 Feb 90 19:39:07 PST In-reply-to: "Your message of Wed, 21 Feb 90 18:43:26 PST" Sender: Kenneth A Pier:PARC:Xerox Subject: Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README To: Bill Jackson:PARC:xerox Cc: Kenneth A Pier:PARC:Xerox
Why did you send this out of band instead of to PCedarImplementors? I intended to start a Discussion about Discussions. Your comments are well taken- Discussions should certainly have a goal and should terminate. One possible outcome is that the goal and the Discussion disappear.
22-Feb-90 To: Daniel C. Swinehart Re: Personal comment Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README
Date: 22 Feb 90 19:49:08 PST In-reply-to: "Daniel C. Swinehart:PARC:Xerox's message of Thu, 22 Feb 90 09:16:27 PST" Sender: Kenneth A Pier:PARC:Xerox Subject: Re: Personal comment Re: PCedar Discussions: Please README To: Daniel C. Swinehart:PARC:Xerox Cc: Pier:PARC:Xerox
Is there a mechanism for forcing consensus when none arises naturally?
That's the crux of the issue. Perhaps the Secretary decides- I don't know.
Sometimes, Spreitzer is too smart for any of our goods (I haven't read his Discussion yet- it's been one of those days).