[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
I'm sure we are all groaning under the intensity of the current
list activity, and are either leaving messages unread, or at
least unreplied to, or losing sleep, or neglecting duties, in
trying to keep up.
On other lists I subscribe to that have such high traffic levels,
19 out of every 20 participants never say anything worthwhile,
so I can delete them unread. The problem with Jboske is that
every message is worth reading, and so many are so interesting
they provoke a reply.
So we currently have at least two problems. One is that valuable
participants (*noi* valuable, not *poi*!) will suffer burnout
and abandon us. The other is that people who would be reading
and contributing if traffic were lower aren't. So those of us
who are contributing are partly wasting our time.
I've been suggesting to Nick ways in which he as BF tsar can
make discussion more orderly. But Nick is frazzled so I am
stepping in with this proposal.
The intention of the proposal is that it will make life easier
for all jboskeists. It's intended as a service to the community.
The idea is that it's a *suggestion* for a code of conduct to
which compliance is *voluntary*. So if you don't like the
suggestion, please say so, but don't get angry with me!
If you support or oppose the suggestion, please speak up.
The proposal:
1. By containing a JVASNU or GIDYSNU in the subject line (except
following a "(was: "), a message promises and claims that it
conforms to the Code. (If someone posts a noncompliant follow-up
and forgets to get rid of the JVASNU/GIDYSNU, somebody replying
to that noncompliant follow-up still has the duty ('ought' not
'must') to rectify the subject line.)
2. A JVASNU message's contents speak *only* to the topic in the
subject line.
3. Once it becomes apparent to someone that the disussion of a
particular topic can move on from general issues of meaning to the
specifics of what particular meanings should be officially
assigned to Lojban cmavo or constructions, someone can begin
a GIDYSNU thread, which should be focused on actually reaching
a jboske *decision* about what (in Jboske's opinion) the BF
should prescribe.
4. People are encouraged to be proactive in initiating GIDYSNU
threads and to take on the role of shepherding a GIDYSNU thread
towards a consensus. (Ideally this consensus can then be
documented on the wiki.)
5. If a followup to a GIDYSNU thread reverts to non-GIDYSNU
matters, the tag should change to JVASNU or be deleted.
6. If possible, people who participate in a particular JVASNU
thread should read all the messages in that thread.
7. If possible, people who participate in a particular GIDYSNU
thread should read all the messages in that thread and should
be prepared to retrospectively read key JVASNU messages the
might have led up to it.
8. The committed jboskeist should try to read all JVASNU and
GIDYSNU messages unless they consciously opt out of certain
threads. But they should feel no obligation to read any
untagged messages.
9. Nobody has the right to flame someone for not complying with
the Code. Nobody's a dork or a**hole for not complying. But
somebody who fastidiously complies deserves tacit gratitude.
--And.