Wiki Gardening Chat

[Ken MacLeod <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

We held our first WikiGardening chat today.  Our goals were to
prioritize specific refactorings, identify organizational techniques,
perform refactorings, and schedule another meeting.  We didn't get to
prioritizing the refactorings or actually performing any refactorings
today.

The specific refactorings and organizational techniques we identified
are on the WikiGardening page, with a snapshot of those below.  Anyone
can add more suggestions to the wiki.

Two specific refactorings were covered that we believe need to have
wiki-level discussion before proceeding:

 * What to do with signed comments.

     Flip around the sense of RefactorOk, so the wiki is "always"
     factorable unless otherwise noted.

 * Seperate Thread and Document mode.

     Begin seperating threads and document, making DocumentMode pages
     primary.  In a mature wiki, one would not normally preserve the
     threads themselves, in our wiki, at this time, it may make more
     sense to hold on to them for a while.

There were lots of ideas for factoring the FrontPage.  The complete
IRC log is included below.

We decided to have twice weekly WikiGardening chats for a while, with
the first two coming up next Tuesday and Thursday at the same time.
See FrontPage for local timezones.

Thanks to everyone who participated in the first WikiGardening chat!

  -- Ken MacLeod

---------- WikiGardening snapshot ----------

== Specific refactorings ==
(not prioritized)

 * FrontPage
   * restate first paragraph
   * bullet points should probably be severely pruned
   * separate intro pages for developers / visitors
   * polls
     * list of openpolls should probably be maintained manually to point
       to the most important ones.
     * Separating the Open Polls out of Current Focus, and into a
       section in its own right.
     * page needs to convey history, status, and goals, and it's not
       doing particularly well at any of that

  * provide a single naming status page and wiki-include it in all
    historical naming pages
  * identify, mark, or archive obsolete pages
  * replace arbitrary format names with an easy to replace tag pending
    final naming decision
  * make sure each page covers one topic
  * factor larger pages into smaller ones, or summarize
  * StatusReports should be status reports, milestones and current
    status elsewhere
  * RoadMap should link to related pages

== Refactorings requiring notice, discussion, and/or vote ==

  * What to do with signed comments
    * suggestion: flip around RefactorOk and make it NoRefactor
  * Separate Thread and Document mode
  * consolidate pages on similar/same topics

== Organization ==

  * Identify key target audiences and related information needs
  * list "hot" pages
  * look into FrontPage and SiteNavigation
    * first impression
    * organized collection of all topics
  * Announcements
  * reference implementations and examples, distinct from ["Tools"]
  * linking Wiki/IRC/mail discussions

---------- IRC Log ----------

--- bitsko has changed the topic to: Wiki Gardening Chat -- 15:30Z, 90 minutes -- http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/WikiGardening
<Isofarro> bitsko: okay. Is there an agenda, and is someone logging the discussion?
<bitsko> yes, this chat will be logged and published.
<jbeimler> wow. people here. 
<AaronSw> how do i say something off log?
<sbp> don't say it
--> wob_ (~wobzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<bitsko> I will remove statements by request
<bitsko> The agenda is as listed on the WikiGardening page:
<bitsko>  * prioritize specific refactorings
<bitsko>  * identify potential organizational techniques
<bitsko>  * perform more significant refactorings with reviewers available for immediate sanity checks
<bitsko>  * schedule future chats
--> f8dy (~chatzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<AaronSw> I propose starting with the front page.
<bitsko> I will scribe and facilitate for the first two items, but I did not come with specific refactorings or organizations in mind, preferring others to throw out ideas first
<bitsko> ok, "FrontPage".  anything specific?
<AaronSw> Well, obviously no one reads the first paragraph, because it still says "argued over endlessly"
<AaronSw> so we should probably shorten it or get rid of it
* bitsko notes he is making edits to WikiGardening and will announce refreshes.  others should not be editing that page at this time
<AaronSw> and the rest of the bullet points should probably be severely pruned. the list of openpolls should probably be maintained manually to point to the most important ones
<Isofarro> Hmm... "implemented by everybody" sounds a little forceful. Maybe "implementable by everybody"
<AaronSw> the page needs to convey history, status, and goals, and it's not doing particularly well at any of that
<sbp> yeah. JeremyGray is a particular uninteresting poll
<sbp> er, particularly
<bitsko> ok, let's not get *that* specific yet :-)  I've got "FrontPage -- restate first paragraph"
* bitsko WikiGardening updated
<sbp> it'd be nice if the intro blurb started with a gerund in there: "This initiative is developing a common syntax..." instead of "The Project is an initiative to develop a common syntax". bad writing
<bitsko> other refactorings for FrontPage?
--> danja (danja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<AaronSw> <AaronSw> the page needs to convey history, status, and goals, and it's not doing particularly well at any of that
<bitsko> I've added <AaronSw> and the rest of the bullet points should probably be severely pruned. the list of openpolls should probably be maintained manually to point to the most important ones
<AaronSw> i'm not sure how best to do that
<AaronSw> but i think it's important
<AaronSw> err re covneying things, not bullets
<Isofarro> I'm tempted to suggest Separating the Open Polls out of Current Focus, and into a section in its own right.
<bitsko> thx, got <AaronSw> <AaronSw> the page needs to convey history, status, and goals, and it's not doing particularly well at any of that
<sbp> current focus is a good status section. history can be tailed to the page, and the goals should really be stated in the abstract/introduction
* bitsko refreshed
<bitsko> sbp: does WikiGardening capture what you just described?
<bitsko> any other items for FrontPage?
<danja> just a thought - what about separate intro pages for developers / visitors 
<sbp> I don't think so, no...
--> NickChalko_ (~chatzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<bitsko> added: separate intro pages for developers / visitors
<danja> bitsko - press releases?
<bitsko> danja: do we have any?
<NickChalko_> morning all
<danja> hi Nick
<Isofarro> danja: press releases => separate page -- I'd expect quite a handful over time.
<danja> sounds good
* sbp wonders about using the Wiki itself as a $project blog...
<bitsko> any other items for FrontPage?
<bitsko> ok, what other wiki refactorings should there be?
<bitsko> either specific pages or overall factorings
<AaronSw> popping up a level, i think we should get agreement on names and refactorok
<AaronSw> i think we should flip around RefactorOk and make it NoRefactor 
<bitsko> can you expand on "agreement on names"?
<AaronSw> so that refactorok is presumed
<rubys> +1 to NoRefactor
<Isofarro> AaronSW: good suggestion
<AaronSw> agreement on names: what to do with signed comments: discourage, refactor, etc.
<sbp> +1, already been proposed, not sure why it's not been implemented yet
<danja> +1 to NoRefactor
<bitsko> "what to do with signed comments and No/Refactor/Ok", can that be restated as factoring between ThreadMode and DocumentMode, or is that something different?
<danja> I like modes
<bitsko> modes are fine, the question is more to where they appear
<AaronSw> I consider ThreadMode as a problem to be fixed; i.e. the discussion should be cleaned up and summarized
<danja> Thread & Doc are intermingled quite a bit - separation might be a good first step
<danja> i.e. improve XXX and XXXDiscuss split
<sbp> the problem with cleaning up and summarizing is that you're bound to lose a lot of the information in the original thread. splitting off discussions and then summarizing and linking would be better
<AaronSw> if you agree with my position (threadmode is bad) then there's not a lot of point in /Discuss separation
<sbp> then again, the discussion can still continue which means that the summarization will go out of date... but you want the threading to continue
<AaronSw> bound to? I don't think that's true
<bitsko> that may be a matter of the newness of our wiki
<bitsko> iow, a mature wiki wouldn't do that but maybe ours should
<Isofarro> sbp: Yeah. How about moving the Threads to a Discuss page, replace with a summary, and link the summary to that particular discussion... I know its a bit of work.
<bitsko> I've added, and refreshed:
<bitsko>  * What to do with signed comments
<bitsko>   * suggestion: flip around RefactorOk and make it NoRefactor
<sbp> why would it not be true? if you change the structure so radically, you're bound to lose some of the subtleties, nuances and connotations of the original discussion at the very least; but you'll probably end up losing a lot of the discussion too. plus, if the summarizer is biased in his or her approach of the discussion, some people points of view may be omitted, the story not told quite as truthfully, etc.
<bitsko> to capture the original refactoring suggestion.  is there a suggestion specific to ThreadMode/DocumentMode?
<danja> I don't think ThreadMode is bad, just needs keeping separate 
<AaronSw> well, that's not my experience, sbp.
<danja> sbp - true, and linking would avoid upsetting people by deletes
<AaronSw> these are technologists, not shakespeares
<Isofarro> danja: Yeah, that's the upside, and it may avoids the endless loop of rediscussion.
<sbp> so what? technologists work by debate and facts, and you can leave parts of the debate out and misrepresent them, and you can leave facts out and distort them in summarizations
<danja> until Refactor switch has been made, it's more polite to link
<Znarf> +1 separation between thread & document for the moment
<bitsko> lets hold off on the detailed discussion and keep to adding to the list
<AaronSw> so a) don't leave out part of the debate and b) if you see it left out, add it to the summary
<AaronSw> the goal is to get people modifying the summary instead of discussing
<bitsko> refreshed with: *  Seperate Thread and Document mode 
<AaronSw> if you want to discuss, you can do it on the mailing list
<AaronSw> but the wiki is meant to be a living document, not a chatroom
<danja> Aaron - I disagree - both can coexist
<bitsko> are there more bullets to add re. thread and document mode?
<-- wob_ has quit ("ChatZilla 0.8.31 [Mozilla rv:1.4/20030624]")
<AaronSw> I'm not saying they can't coexist, i'm just saying I don't want them to
<sbp> nope. I think we can move on :-)
<danja> ya
<Znarf> Aaron, agree, but we must have a transitional stage
<bitsko> what are some other refactorings?
<AaronSw> bitsko, i'd sort of like to see a show of hands on this issue
<bitsko> AaronSw: this is brainstorming.  voting comes later.
<bitsko> particularly, this is above the level of decision I believe we should decide here
<danja> +1
<rubys> where should such an issue be decided?
<danja> Wiki vote I would say
<sbp> but then do we allow just anyone to participate in the vote, or just people who were on IRC... :-)
<rubys> danja: I'm ok with that.  sbp: anybody who participates in the wiki.
--> burtonator (~burton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<sbp> rubys: I was kidding, parodizing the discussion on FinalNameVote
* danja wonders on number of active Wiki users
<AaronSw> OK, can we add that to the action list, bitsko?
<sbp> (which is actually a valid point)
<bitsko> I commented to someone earlier, I believe there are A, B, and C decisions.  C decisions are the ones individuals can make.  B decisions are those two or three individuals can make (us here).  'A' decisions are those the whole group must make.  Changing the sense of RefactorOk and wholesale conversion of threadmode to documentmode are 'A' decisions.
<bitsko> AaronSw: you mean add a notice for vote, correct?
<danja> +1 to that (which is an exceptional A)
<danja> bitsko - sorry I got here late, is this being logged? Where are notes going?
<AaronSw> bitsko, yes
<bitsko> danja: WikiGardening page
<AaronSw> yes it's being logged
* bitsko WikiGardening refreshed
<danja> thanks A & b
<sbp> oh. there were a lot of historical Echo name discussion pages that I updated to point to ProjectNameProposals, but it might be a good idea to have a single page giving the naming status and then use an include for all of the old naming pages. I only found out recently that moin moin has includes
<sbp> it'd be good to update them all to FinalNameVote, I mean, but FinalNameVote mightn't be so final what with NOTA...
<AaronSw> OK, so another general question is about what to do with obsolete pages
<bitsko> sbp: can you restate that with a shorter blurb for a bullet?
<AaronSw> should we delete them? mark them as obsolete for history? update them to point/redirect to the new page?
<Isofarro> sbp: Includes - that a good idea. Was thinking of something similar for the DiscusssionThread/DocumentThread mode solution (for the summaries at least) -- sorry I'm backtracking a bit.
<sbp> "* provide a single naming status page and wiki-include it in all historical naming pages"
<AaronSw> put them in some sort of frozen archive? some combination of the above?
<danja> frozen archive + link sounds good
<sbp> +1 for having an archive/splitting them off
<sbp> but if so, they should probably have a different style from the editable wiki, for consistency
<Isofarro> +1 on Mark as obsolete.
* bitsko refreshed
<f8dy> +1 on marking as obsolete, with a pointer to newer more relevant pages
--> djjd (~djjd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<bitsko> other refactorings?
<Isofarro> either a pointer to the newer page, or an explanation of why its obsolete.
<danja> maybe a 'central' page listing obsoletes?
<Isofarro> danja: agreed.
<NickChalko_> CategoryObsolete
<f8dy> that's easy enough if we use a standard marker
<bitsko> folks, too much detail now.  other refactorings?
<f8dy> +1 on CategoryObsolete
<AaronSw> how about something like this is an ObsoletePage, see ?show=info for what it used to say
<danja> bitsko - ok - can we categorise more?
<bitsko> danja: you mean the suggestions for refactorings?  sure
<danja> sorry - I meant do more categorization of the Wiki content
<bitsko> yes, that's the second agenda item.
<bitsko> the agenda is the list at the top of WikiGardening
* danja scurries off
<bitsko> other refactorings?
<sbp> I'm wondering if someone could go around some of the more prominent pages--FrontPage, ConceptualModel, Syntax, RoadMap, etc.--and do something to the project name such that it's... independent of the current trend. I was thinking of using ThisFormat or something
<bitsko> sbp: I was reverting to WellFormedEntry for a while
<sbp> because in some places it's called pie, in some Echo, in some not-[whatever], and some Atom. for someone coming in from the outside with no prior knowledge of the naming discussion, that's got to be confusing
<sbp> yeah, I noticed
<danja> ;-)
<AaronSw> [[Include CurrentName]]
<danja> nice
<sbp> that's an idea
<bitsko> added:  * replace arbitrary format names with an easy to replace tag pending final naming decision
<rubys> let me know if I should replace the title
<bitsko> more refactorings?
<danja> looking at http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiRefactoring
<danja> ah, http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiRefactoringStories looks promising
<bitsko> specific suggestions nicked from C2 would be great
<danja> maybe trawl through making sure each page only had 1 topic? (could be time consuming!)
<danja> heh : "If a WikiPage has zero topics, it should be very short."
<bitsko> added:  * make sure each page covers one topic
<sbp> is there a list of the largest pages by bytes somewhere? perhaps someone could then factor out unnecessarily large pages into smaller sections
<AaronSw> we should probably also make sure each topic has one page, or at least one official/title page
<bitsko> added:  * factor larger pages into smaller ones
<-- f8dy has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
<danja> rubys - what's the robots.txt like?
<NickChalko_> bitsko,  favor summary over just splitting ?
<bitsko> AaronSw: is that different than the last two bullets?
<sbp> rubys: perhaps "New Weblog Format Wiki" for the title? ("new weblog format" is the aim of the project given in the RoadMap)
<rubys> don't have anything special in robots.txt for the wiki
<AaronSw> bitsko, yes
<danja> rubys - can spider ok then?
<AaronSw> I can't load http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/SystemInfo
<bitsko> AaronSw: k, I'm not clear on how it's different, could you restate it?
--> ktest (~ktest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<AaronSw> One says each page should cover one topic, the other says each topic should have one page.
<danja> AaronSw - how to identify topics?
<Isofarro> Does topics = issues = questions make sense?
<AaronSw> the point is that we doing need EditingApi, RestEditing, RestEditingApi, RestEditingApiDiscuss, RestDiscuss, etc.
<bitsko> updated:  * factor larger pages into smaller ones, or summarize
<NickChalko_> bitsko,  thanks
<bitsko> AaronSw: "* consolidate topics" ?
<AaronSw> consolidate pages on similar/same topics
<rubys> danja: google seems to be indexing these pages just fine.  I've seen them in search results
<bitsko> added: *  consolidate pages on similar/same topics 
<AaronSw> particularly egregious example: XmlRpc, XmlRpcDiscussion, SampleXmlRpc, EditingApi, WhatProtocolDiscussion, RestBenefits, RestEchoApiDiscuss, ApiProtocols
<danja> rubys - thanks
<danja> refactor to EgregiousRestNotXmlRpcEditingAPIDiscussion
--> mamamusings (~chatzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<bitsko> more refactorings?
<bitsko> ok.  let's move on to organizational suggestions.
<danja> hang on - 
<danja> Shelley raised StatusReports aren't status reports
<danja> did that get sorted at all?
<bitsko> added:  * StatusReports should be status reports
<bitsko> updated:  * StatusReports should be status reports, milestones and current status elsewhere
<danja> yep, sounds good
<mamamusings> bitsko, where are you putting these additions/updates? is there a chat notes page somewhere?
<sbp> the RoadMap states the following five steps: conceptual model, syntax, syndication format, archiving format, editing protocol. I think that a) the RoadMap needs updating (name it, promote it, standardize it) b) each important page should say which part of the RoadMap it is attempting to further--how it fits in with the roadmap, possibly via road map categories
<bitsko> mamamusings: WikiGardening page
<mamamusings> thanks
<danja> sbp - in brief, the RoadMap isn't a RoadMap ;-0
<sbp> then either remove it or update it
<sbp> or rename it...
<danja> it looks more like top-level categories right now
<bitsko> added: * RoadMap should link to related pages
<AaronSw> +1 to sbp's idea of saying which part it furthers
<bitsko> k, I'd like to move on to the next item.  please hold additional refactorings until after we're done meeting, then feel free to add them in to the wiki after I've summarized.
<bitsko> on wiki organization, one of the common criticisms of our wiki is that it is difficult to "come into" (seperate from difficult to keep up with).
<danja> "come into"?
<Isofarro> get stuck into
<bitsko> read from the top down, or from the new reader's perspective.
<AaronSw> it's difficult to be read from an old reader's perspective
<bitsko> or use as a referenced to the Pie/Atom/Echo experienced reader.
<danja> right - I think having different entry points for different readers might help
<mamamusings> as one of the few "new readers" here, I can +1 that.
<AaronSw> it's hard to get any idea of the scope of it or where you are in it; sometimes i feel like i've fallen down a rabbit hole into DoNotUseXmlRpc
<sbp> heh
<bitsko> so what we're looking for now are specific suggestions of entry points or organizations that would help
<ktest> there was talk of an Executive Summary some time ago
<sbp> so this is a FrontPage thing again?
<AaronSw> i think pruning obsolete pages and adding lots of Up and Nearby page links at the top might help
<bitsko> note, we've already covered "consolidate related topic pages" as a refactoring step
<mamamusings> a lot of this is information architecture 101 stuff. the fact that this is a wiki doesn't mean traditional web architecture rules don't apply.
<bitsko> sbp: it could be a FrontPage thing, the FrontPage surely is the first "entry point" into the wiki
<AaronSw> everything should be accessible by following links from the FrontPage and those that aren't should be marked as obsolete
<mamamusings> audience-focused entry points would be helpful. who are the audiences for this information? what are their quesitons/information needs?
<mamamusings> good IA starts with a user focus, not a content focus
<Isofarro> I'd like to see an "Implementation" section, covering actual code and toolkits. Most especially, there's a lack of good REST resources, so a resource library of sorts I think would be useful. Starting with bitsko's shell script example and building up more and more actual example code. Its really difficult finding REST-based source code.
<danja> mamamusings - agreed
<bitsko> AaronSw: what do you see as the difference between FrontPage and, say, SiteNavigation?
<AaronSw> currently we don't have any focus
<AaronSw> 1. i've seen FrontPage before, i've never seen SiteNavigation ;)
<AaronSw> oh, it doesn't exist
<sbp> very closely related: I really find it hard to know what the status of a page is--how active it is. it would be nice if there were a better means of finding hotspots in the wiki than just going by last modification date
<mamamusings> good architecture is seldom emergent.
<AaronSw> some way of finding pages listed by modification date might be useful
<mamamusings> sbp, i've seen that in some wiki implementations-- "most active" page info
<bitsko> mamamusings: do you have a "bullet item" I can add to WikiGardening?
<mamamusings> hmmm. hard to put "apply basic IA principles" into bullet forms, but...
<sbp> this would require playing with moin moin, but it would be really nice to have a very intelligent method of page "hotness" weight updates by how much refactoring was done and by frequency etc. Or, if you just want to do it by hand, make sure that all the most active pages are marked as being highly active, perhaps. hitcounts would be another helpful feature
<mamamusings> I'd say "Identify key target auidences and related information needs"
<mamamusings> s/auidences/audiences
<danja> sbp - yep, bullet point for 'explore activity tracking' or somesuch
<bitsko> added:  * Identify key target auidences and related information needs
<danja> heh
<danja> virulent typo
<sbp> like referer
<bitsko> added:  * list "hot" pages
<danja> (question for later - separate pages to tie in with email/IRC discussions?)
<bitsko> did I miss specific organization suggestions?  I think I have, I only have two
<ktest> Issofaro 's suggestion of Implementation Page?
<bitsko> that's not Tools?
<danja> (question for later - CSS to make Wiki prettier?)
<Isofarro> Implementation and example source code (Python, Perl, Java)
<ktest> If I read the original suggestion correctly, Tools is a Subpage of Implementation
<AaronSw> yes, just removing the CSS would be a big start
<sbp> yeah. it's horrid
<Isofarro> hmm.. tools strikes me as "finished products" rather than source examples.
<AaronSw> i use http://www.aaronsw.com/2002/moinmoin.css personally
<AaronSw> (you can edit the css in your personal preferences page)
<danja> Isofarro - good point, and it all get's mixed up with demo feeds
<AaronSw> i'm happy to take additions to that from more talented designers
<bitsko> so "implementations" might be "reference implementations"?  draft, final, or both?
<mamamusings> bullet point suggestion: implement SiteNavigation page, using both audience breakdowns and topical breakdowns
* lilo wonders if anyone has written a wiki application that has an automated page listing otherwise-orphaned pages
<bitsko> relate that to AaronSw's suggestion that FrontPage link to all topics
<bitsko> lilo: yes, Moin has an OrphanedPages function
<Isofarro> bitsko -either reference implementations or working examples. Like your shell script example.
<mamamusings> need to clarify the difference between "FrontPage" and "SiteNavigation" then. They shouldn't duplicate functions.
<lilo> bitsko: cool :)
<mamamusings> I see FrontPage as being geared towards things like "what's important/new", brief intro to project, etc. SiteNavigation should have the hierarchical links to content (though I realize saying "hierarchy" is hearsay in a wiki world ;)
<AaronSw> http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/OrphanedPages
<ktest> How is SiteNavigation different from TitleIndex?
<mamamusings> or if FrontPage is intended to be the site navigation page, SiteNavigation should be removed.
<danja> categorized by topic?
<mamamusings> One would hope that SiteNavigation would implement some IA concepts, not just be an index.
<mamamusings> a higher-level picture. by audience, by topic, etc
<danja> facetting then?
<bitsko> ktest: SiteNavigation is organized in some manner
<sbp> is "integrate or remove all OrphanedPages" on the list? :-)
<danja> short-lived announcements page would be handy
<ktest> ah, then how does its manner relate to project schema?
<AaronSw> wow, 760 pages - 84 orphaned pages = 676 wiki pages
<AaronSw> that strikes me as a little high
<bitsko> added:
<bitsko>  * look into FrontPage and SiteNavigation
<bitsko>   * first impression
<bitsko>   * organized collection of all topics
* mamamusings rolls eyes at that understatement
* danja doesn't think there'll be enough porrige to go around
<bitsko> danja: should short-lived announcements go on FrontPage?
* ktest thinks of all the extras for Oliver
<danja> not sure - should be very close if not
<bitsko> added:  * Announcements
<mamamusings> i think FrontPage is the ideal location for announcements. or at the minimum, that Announcements should be one of the first, most prominent links.
<bitsko> added:  * reference implementations and examples, distinct from ["Tools"]
<Isofarro> bitsko - thanks.
<ktest> what about OpenPoll and AnswerMe?
<bitsko> we're getting close to the formal close of the meeting.  I'd like to get some more organizational bullets
--- mamamusings is now known as mama_away
<bitsko> correction: we're to the formal close :-)  let's set a date and time for the next formal meeting, then go into the "as participation permits"
* ktest hums "Kodachrome"
<danja> same topic?
<sbp> I got a niiiiiikon camera, I love to take the pho... er, right
<bitsko> yes, on this topic.  other topics can be scheduled at anytime
<danja> okely-dokely
<sbp> same time next week?
<AaronSw> What's going to happen to these bullet points?
<ktest> There are at WikiGardening
<bitsko> I feel we've just hit the tip of the iceberg here and some of the things we've pointed out will have lots of "B" decisions.  maybe sooner would be better?
<bitsko> AaronSw: I'll refactor WikiGardening
<danja> ok
<danja> maybe add a "brainstorm" page?
<ktest> or a link to transcript of today's session
<emanu> I think these meeting should happens more frequently, 1 week is too long
<-- burtonator has quit (Read error: 60 (Operation timed out))
--> burtonator (~burton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
<bitsko> yes, I think twice a week for a couple or three weeks would be good.
<bitsko> is everyone comfortable with the time?  15:30Z?
<emanu> +1
<danja> related point, re. org issues - linking Wiki/IRC/mail discussions
* danja very happy with time
* Isofarro too
<bitsko> added:  * linking Wiki/IRC/mail discussions
<bitsko> Monday or Tuesday?
<NickChalko_> Trackback enabling the Wiki ?
<ktest> stupid question: What does 15:30Z mean in terms of time?
<emanu> the time if fine for me too but you should provide also localized times
<bitsko> ktest: GMT, UTC.  10:30 US/Central
<ktest> ah
<bitsko> for reference, it's in the time format used in The Project ;)
<ktest> Z is or GMT, UTC?
<bitsko> emanu: will linking to one of the "world time zone" sites work?
<sbp> Z == GMT == UTC
<danja> I used http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc
<emanu> bitsko: not sure what you mean, what I'm thinking is something like the annoucement here: http://danja.typepad.com/fecho/2003/08/chat_today.html
<bitsko> after word spreads of the chats, I suspect some other chats will come on Saturday or diferrent times to involve more people.  that's a good thing
<danja> sbp/Aaron - what's the tz thing libby links to for calendar stuff?
<AaronSw> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=13&month=8&year=2003&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=0
<danja> bitsko - it'd be very helpful if you could also mail syntax list with details
<bitsko> re. timezone, I went looking for the site that accepts a given date/time URL and provides timezone specific dates and times for that, but couldn't find it then
<bitsko> danja: will do
<danja> thanks
<bitsko> ooh, even better: I can mail the snapshot of the bullet list and log, and not clutter the wiki up with the archive
<danja> ...and I can blog it ;-)
* ktest appreciates Formerly Echo
<bitsko> k.  again Thursday next next week, one week from today.  which of Monday or Tuesday also?
<emanu> I suggest to log live the next meeting, so people that comes late will be able to peruse the discussion
* danja must make more time for RecentChanges
<sbp> ProjectName :-)
<sbp> danja: did you consider that before fecho?
<ktest> emanu: chumpbot?
<bitsko> chumbot's not a logger.  we can look into a log bot.
<emanu> ktest: what is chumpbot?
<ktest> bitsko: true
<bitsko> k.  Tuesday it is, then ;)
<danja> sbp - fecho followed from Father Jack pronunciation of 'RSS'
<sbp> haha!
<ktest> emanu: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/ChumpBot 
<emanu> ktest: thanks
<sbp> okay, conceded
<bitsko> I'll keep "one weeks" advance notice on the FrontPage, so we're now going to be scheduled for Tue 15:30Z, 90 minutes, and Thu 15:30Z, 90 minutes.  any objections?
--> carlgarland (~chatzilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has joined #echo
* ktest hearing none, then it's all agreed that carlgarland will pay for all of this!
* ktest motions for adjournement
<carlgarland> do you take pennies?
<carlgarland> I have a quick question ... has anyone created xml icon for echo i can snag
<bitsko> a note on the agenda, we did not get to "prioritizing" the refactorings.  we can continue to do that after we close, or leave it until Tuesday.  Action items include: posting notices of potential RefactorOk and ThreadMode refactorings and opening for discussion.
<bitsko> carlgarland: hold a second while we wrap up a meeting
<bitsko> I'll also refactor the WikiGardening page and snapshot it and the log to atom-syntax.  anything else before we close?
<danja> bitsko - sounds good
* danja has to walk dog - byeee
<Isofarro> ciya danja!
<bitsko> alright then!  the first WikiGardening chat in its formal form is now closed.  Thank you to everyone who participated!
<-- danja (danja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has left #echo
<emanu> thanks bitsko for moderating!
<ktest> Thanks bitsko
<Isofarro> yeah - good job!
<sbp> thanks
<-- ktest (~ktest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) has left #echo ("Client exiting")
* bitsko <blushes>  thx