RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing
Going back to a thread started by Chris Dent May 21, where he said
should there be a list devoted to OHS specs and code, discussed in a
focused fashion. (01)
There is not a lot of traffic on the unrev list at the moment, as far as
I can see. May I propose that we use the BA-OHS-Talk list in the manner
suggested by Chris Dent below, and that we move all other discussion to
unrev? Please let us know how you feel about this. Can we reach a group
consensus? Here's why I'm making the suggestion. (02)
Doug says he does want to participate in a focused discussion of the OHS
specs and code. But it is in practice impossible for him to participate
in the current style of discussion on the BA-OHS list. So there is a way
I'm approaching this: (03)
1. Keep the BA OHS discussion focused on the specs and code
2. Have a way to regularly raise the questions/issues raised in the OHS
discussion to Doug, and get reasonable answers back to the list
3. Have transcripts of the discussion so that there is a source document
to refer to, even if this is only available later. (04)
We are working to have a 2 hour worksession (by invitation only**) with
him once a week in the Bootstrap office in Fremont, CA, in order to
scope out the technical roadmap for the Hyperscope and OHS. I have no
current estimate on how long this will take, or how well we will be able
to integrate/connect/make productive these face to face sessions with
the online discussion list. However, I think it is worth exploring, so
I'm working on how we might pull it off. I think it involves developing
good questions based on his BI2120 paper, getting answers and being
prepared to go with him where the answers might take the discussion.
Ideally we would develop a proto-dkr (dynamic knowledge repository) to
record this information in some way in the process. (05)
I am going to see what we can do to record these sessions in audio or
video form. We have a volunteer to do the transcriptions (MC - thank you
on behalf of the group) so I feel some of the pieces are coming into
place, though far from perfect, it is a start. If someone wants to come
as moral support, and logistical support to video or tape the sessions
that is a function we could use help in. (06)
** When I say "by invitation" basically we want to keep the group very
small and focused. Able to deal with the terms and conditions under
which Doug wants to talk about this topic. In a separate post last week,
I explained why I'm committed to this path, to allow self-selection
among those who want to work with Doug, (engage actively with a
visionary giant, even it if means a mental roller coaster ride) to just
those who are prepared to work the way he feels is necessary. You don't
have to know me to be invited, but you have to be prepared to deal with
me as a gatekeeper. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just trying
to stay focused on the task at hand. (07)
Mei Lin (08)
Chris Dent: (09)
I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to do the following to
improve our infrastructure: (010)
- Create a ba-ohs-devel list where specifications and code can be
discussed in a focussed fashion, leaving talk for things like
licensing, sharing of links, tool ideas, implementation
generalities, philophical meanderings related to an OHS.
unrev-talk would be the place for still larger issues. A little
rigorous self-moderating (in the "hey, move this to to unrev"
sense) would be good. (011)