[erlang-questions] Announcing Erlang.org Code of Conduct

[Valentin Micic]

Once I was a member of a mailing list that had a very rigid rule formulated in order to save archiving space.:  "quotations must not exceed  50% of the new message".

The unintended consequence of this approach was that people had to write more if they wanted to ensure that quote is given a fair chance of standing by itself; 
or they have to quote less, which promoted off-the-topic follow ups (a.k.a. discussion manipulation). 
Judging from my behavior on that list, I would have to conclude that people did read less of what was written (but they sure did manage to save some archive space).

Personally, I am in favor of include everything, but with a few considerations:

- Always top-post, and always include complete correspondence up to that time.
- If you want to quote something, extract it from the original (included) text (which will remain intact) and place it as a part of your top-post in order to provide a "closer" reference for your comment.

The include everything thus formulated could be regarded as a close relative to include nothing approach due to the following:

Let's presume that include noting approach, by definition, contains a top-post entry only.
Also, presume that in order to comment on a given point, such a point will be extracted from the previous mail and made part of the top-post (therefore, not using in-line commenting method).

Then, if one is interested in a HEAD (that is, top-post), it wouldn't matter if the TAIL is empty or non-empty list.

In other words. assuming that NEW_POST may take a form of:

NEW_POST = [TOP_POST]
         or
 NEW_POST = [TOP_POST|PREVIOUS_POSTS]

Then, archive maintenance may be as simple as:

[TOP_POST|_] = NEW_POST,

[TOP_POST|ARCHIVE]

V/


On 19 Mar 2015, at 8:58 AM, Bengt Kleberg wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> When advocating top posts as better than inline quotes, one reason mentioned is that it is possible to use inline quotes to manipulate the discussion whereas a top post will keep all quotes un-edited below. Sounds logical.
> The retort to this argument is that to prevent improper quotations no quotes should be allowed.
> I can not make the leap from, if keeping all text is better than editing it, then the really large edit of removing all text is even better.
> 
> Someone care to explain the steps?
> 
> 
> bengt
> 
> On 03/18/2015 05:10 PM, e@REDACTED wrote:
>> On 03/18/2015 04:32 PM, Joe Armstrong wrote:
>>> I like top posts:
>>> 
>>> Why:
>>> 
>>> 1) People have short span of attention - they only read the first few
>>> lines, then decide
>> 
>> pardon me,
>> do you seriously assume that people have only sequential access to a text?
>> 
>> 
>>> I know for a fact that people
>>> follow links near the top of my
>>> blogs and not near the end - the stuffs so boring they don't get to the end.
>> 
>> very good filter for those who are not interested in a productive conversation
>> 
>> 
>>> 2) Interleaving replies with previously posted text often results in a
>>> mess where it's impossible
>> 
>> cooking often results in a mess.
>> repair often results in a mess.
>> publishing books often results in a mess.
>> programming often results in a mess.
>> 
>> 
>>> to see who said what, especially if their are multiple interleaving. I
>>> have recently heard of
>>> deliberate manipulation of previously published text, in attempt to
>>> manipulate a discussion.
>> 
>> ok,
>> in order to prevent improper quotations let's just omit all quotation at once!
>> good riddance!
>> i also suggest to forbid all tools that might be misused.
>> 
>> 
>>>  Separately posted articles makes it clear who said what
>> 
>> leaving totally unclear WHY did they say that.
>> 
>> 
>>> 3) Top postings aren't really at the top - the subject line in the
>>> mail is at the top.
>> 
>> no.
>> "Return-Path:" line is on the top.
>> 
>> 
>>> 4) The topmost posting is often the most interesting and an indication
>>> that a topic is worth of a discussion.
>> 
>> it is so incomprehensible and ridiculous claim that i just decided to quote it as is.
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> erlang-questions mailing list
>> erlang-questions@REDACTED
>> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> 
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20150319/cdd219dc/attachment.htm>