[PL] 2004 edition - coming soon

[Susan Bugher]

Getting closer - this is the timetable for the 2004 vote.

NOMINATIONS (2 weeks): November 3 - November 16, 2003
DISCUSSION (2 weeks): November 17 - November 30, 2003
VOTING (1 week): December 1 - December 7, 2003
POST-VOTE DISCUSSION (1 week): December 8 - December 14, 2003
FINAL LIST POSTED: December 15, 2003

for more information about procedures see:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm

I just uploaded a set of PL 2004 review pages - with revised categories
and subcategories. The nominations page is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

The category page is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004CategoryIndex.htm

If you intend to nominate a program and it needs a new category please
bring that up *now*. Later is okay but now is *better*.

If you think I put programs in the wrong category - tell me about it
*now* please!

Some of the procedures need to be worked out.

The consensus was in favor of voting with a posted ballot. I suggest
that this be done by pasting the names of the programs you wish to vote
for into a blank post. (I also suggest one ballot per person rather than
a ballot for each category as we have done in the past.) Vote counting
could be done by searching the posted ballots for each program name.
*More* volunteers will be needed for this task.

I would like to shorten the length of time it takes to prepare the web
pages after the final selection is made. The initial nomination should
have the information needed for the nominations page. I suggest that we
have a thread for posting the program description *as it should be shown
on the PL 2004 web page*. Posting that description would be the
responsibility of the person who nominates a program (or volunteers?).

That would allow me to add new and revised program descriptions to the
web pages as we proceed with the nomination and discussion phases. Once
the winners have been picked the final web pages could be prepared by
simply deleting the programs that were not selected.

Questions? Comments?

Susan

 

[Valery Kondakoff]

The category page is here:
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004CategoryIndex.htm

If you intend to nominate a program and it needs a new category
please bring that up *now*. Later is okay but now is *better*.

I'm still planning to nominate nnCron LITE (do you remember this long
discussion some time ago?). This is a tiny yet powerful scheduler,
UNIX cron/anacron ported to Windows.

Don't you think it's a good idea, to add new category 'System Utilities
- Scheduling Apps', or, maybe, 'Programming - Automation - Schedulers'?

Personally I prefer the first one category. Please, point me to the
right category for nnCron LITE if you don't want to add a new one.

Thanks.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'm still planning to nominate nnCron LITE (do you remember this long
discussion some time ago?). This is a tiny yet powerful scheduler,
UNIX cron/anacron ported to Windows.

Don't you think it's a good idea, to add new category 'System Utilities
- Scheduling Apps', or, maybe, 'Programming - Automation - Schedulers'?

Personally I prefer the first one category. Please, point me to the
right category for nnCron LITE if you don't want to add a new one.

Hi Valery,

The purpose of the PL categories and sub-categories is to help people
*find* the best program for their needs. Toward that end:

The PL2004 Desktop page includes apps that simplify or speed up daily
tasks.

The PL2004 Organizer page includes catalogers, organizers and time
related programs (PIMs, clocks, calendars, time sync. etc.)

Geeky programs are on the Programming page.

I remember nnCron LITE being discussed. The details are a bit hazy.

I would like advice from the group. nnCron LITE is here:

http://www.nncron.ru/#nncronlt

All I know about most of PW programs is what I read in the descriptions.
I know of two programs on the PL that do scheduling. Any others?

Kana Reminder:
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004ORGANIZERS.htm#K102

PowerPro:
http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004DESKTOP.htm#P137

What PW programs is nnCron most like? What Category (web page) is best?

Susan

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I'm still planning to nominate nnCron LITE (do you remember this long
discussion some time ago?). This is a tiny yet powerful scheduler,
UNIX cron/anacron ported to Windows.

Susan: are authors allowed to nominate their own software?

 

[Susan Bugher]

Susan: are authors allowed to nominate their own software?

AFAIK - why wouldn't they be? false modesty?

They are only allowed to vote for it once . . .

Susan

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

AFAIK - why wouldn't they be? false modesty?

No.

I thought the whole idea was about group interests, as versus
self-promotion.

If not prohibited, it seems like we should make sure that, at least,
disclosure is made that it's the author making the proposal, even if
he doesn't so disclose, himself.

And there's the "civilized" aspect -- I think in a lot of organizations
and settings, self-nominations aren't accepted, or are at least viewed
with some disdain. I could be wrong; I'm not exactly a parlaimentarian.

Have you never noticed that once in an a while, when someone comes in
all breathless about this great new software, it's pointed out by one or
two of the regulars that, well, he's *connected* with the program?[1] I
think that's a worthwhile point, and service to the community; and
with that in mind thought that concept might have been institutionalized
in the nomination procedures, at some point in time.

[1]That doesn't make the program bad. But it's good information,
because it gives others a heads-up on the perspective of the person
that's promoting it.

 

[Valery Kondakoff]

AFAIK - why wouldn't they be? false modesty?

Have you never noticed that once in an a while, when someone comes in
all breathless about this great new software, it's pointed out by
one or two of the regulars that, well, he's *connected* with the
program?[1]

I think this is not a problem. Currently I'm not _nominating_ this
program. I'm just asking: which category is best for nomination.

Personally I don't think there is no sense to disallow authors to
nominate their programs because it's easy to nominate the program
anonymously if the author wants to hide the fact, that he _is_ the
author of the program.

Currently there is _no_ plain lightweighted scheduler presented on PW
pages. That is the reason why I'm attempting to nominate nnCron LITE.
When we talked about this the last time you have said, that you don't
think that nnCron LITE is suited for PW because it does not include
'anacron' functionality. Now 'anacron' functionality is implemented. If
there are other problems?

--
Best regards,
Valery Kondakoff

np: The Smiths - Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others (The Queen Is Dead)
[sto

 

[stan]

why only one week for voting? i suggest make it 2 weeks.

you will most likely get more votes the longer the period.
some may not be online during this one week period, holiday season.

just a suggestion..

Regards
Stan

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Susan: are authors allowed to nominate their own software?
AFAIK - why wouldn't they be? false modesty?

Have you never noticed that once in an a while, when someone comes in
all breathless about this great new software, it's pointed out by
one or two of the regulars that, well, he's *connected* with the
program?[1]

I think this is not a problem. Currently I'm not _nominating_ this
program. I'm just asking: which category is best for nomination.

I didn't say you were, did I? Nominations aren't even being accepted,
yet, are they? I was asking so some thought could be given the
question for when the process begins, next month.

Personally I don't think there is no sense to disallow authors to
nominate their programs because it's easy to nominate the program
anonymously if the author wants to hide the fact, that he _is_ the
author of the program.

Yes, there's no way to prevent dishonest authors.

Currently there is _no_ plain lightweighted scheduler presented on PW
pages. That is the reason why I'm attempting to nominate nnCron LITE.
When we talked about this the last time you have said, that you don't
think that nnCron LITE is suited for PW because it does not include
'anacron' functionality. Now 'anacron' functionality is implemented. If
there are other problems?

I dunno. I've never tried use it.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

why only one week for voting? i suggest make it 2 weeks.

you will most likely get more votes the longer the period.
some may not be online during this one week period, holiday
season.

I would agree if a two-week period voting period had been proposed
before now, but as it is I think it should remain at one week.
Extending it at this point would push the end of the process to 21
December.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I would agree if a two-week period voting period had been proposed
before now, but as it is I think it should remain at one week.
Extending it at this point would push the end of the process to 21
December.

Oops, lost track of Stan's post. How about an *absentee* ballot - sent
it to the Pricelessware link before the voting starts.

Susan

 

[Genna Reeney]

Getting closer - this is the timetable for the 2004 vote.

NOMINATIONS (2 weeks): November 3 - November 16, 2003
DISCUSSION (2 weeks): November 17 - November 30, 2003
VOTING (1 week): December 1 - December 7, 2003
POST-VOTE DISCUSSION (1 week): December 8 - December 14, 2003
FINAL LIST POSTED: December 15, 2003

To my great relief, Susan has agreed to be the point person for this year's
PL.

To those who have enquired, I am around, I lurk, but I really don't have
tons of time these days. I keep hoping that things will slow down a bit and
allow me to catch up, but for now I am most grateful for Susan's amazing
dedication to the cause. I will be providing whatever assistance she
requires, but it may help if anyone with some extra time could volunteer to
help at various stages of the process. I will leave it to Susan to determine
which areas might require additional input.

Cheers,
Genna

 

[Susan Bugher]

To my great relief, Susan has agreed to be the point person for this

year's PL.

and . . .

As the man being ridden out of town on a rail said: "If it weren't for
the honor I'd rather walk."

IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR THE GROUP

I need help . . .

and I have a suggestion . . .

In addition to the requirement of a nomination and a second I propose that:

A complete program description *MUST* be posted and verified before a
program is eligible to be placed on the PL2004 ballot.

The description *should* be posted by the person who nominates the
program and verified by the person who seconds it. It *may* be posted
and/ or verified by others. (Carryover nominations have descriptions -
they would need a verification.)

IOW anyone could prepare the description or verify it . . .

but not me babe . . .

That requirement would spread the work around . . .

and lighten my load considerably . . .

Comments? Suggestions?

Susan

 

[burnr]

year's PL.

and . . .

As the man being ridden out of town on a rail said: "If it weren't for
the honor I'd rather walk."

IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR THE GROUP

I need help . . .

and I have a suggestion . . .

In addition to the requirement of a nomination and a second I propose
that:

A complete program description *MUST* be posted and verified before a
program is eligible to be placed on the PL2004 ballot.

The description *should* be posted by the person who nominates the
program and verified by the person who seconds it. It *may* be posted
and/ or verified by others. (Carryover nominations have descriptions -
they would need a verification.)

IOW anyone could prepare the description or verify it . . .

but not me babe . . .

That requirement would spread the work around . . .

and lighten my load considerably . . .

Comments? Suggestions?

Susan

Sounds good to me.

 

[Roger Spencelayh]

In addition to the requirement of a nomination and a second I propose that:

A complete program description *MUST* be posted and verified before a
program is eligible to be placed on the PL2004 ballot.

The description *should* be posted by the person who nominates the
program and verified by the person who seconds it. It *may* be posted
and/ or verified by others. (Carryover nominations have descriptions -
they would need a verification.)

IOW anyone could prepare the description or verify it . . .

but not me babe . . .

That requirement would spread the work around . . .

and lighten my load considerably . . .

Comments? Suggestions?

Sound fine, but if you're going that far, why not require the addition of
links to the site and program as well, with the description of the
description and links to be verified by the seconder? One thread per
nomination, and all that's left is for you to compile it all for display on
the PL site

 

[Susan Bugher]

Sound fine, but if you're going that far, why not require the addition of
links to the site and program as well, with the description of the
description and links to be verified by the seconder? One thread per
nomination, and all that's left is for you to compile it all for display on
the PL site

That's what I was trying to say.

Just a bit more on how that would work. I would add the descriptions to
the PL2004 review pages (ideally the descriptions would be posted and
added *before* the discussion period) - the Nominations page would have
a link to the description. When the final PL2004 selections have been
made I would:

Create a web page containing the descriptions of the also-rans and
revise their links on the Nomination page to point to that new page.

Remove the also-ran descriptions from the PL2004 pages.

Archive the PL2003 pages.

FYI - the Nominations page looks like this:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

IMO using Lars script improves the Nominations page a lot. It should be
*much* easier this year to check on the status of a program or category
or see if your favorites have been nominated.

The goal is KISS - suggestions welcome.

Susan

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

A good idea, sez me. The only problem I can foresee is that if someone
posts a misleading description, the nomination thread could get pretty
messy as a result, making it difficult on whoever is keeping track of
those nominations. Hopefully, no one will post anything misleading.

(An aside: I'd take a nomination in which the nominator does not
bother to post the description s/he *should* as one I might check into
after I was done with looking at the nomination posts that did include
descriptions. IOW, I am trying to encourage nominators to pay
attention to the *should* as it will make your nominations seem of more
importance to you, and thus to me.

Just a bit more on how that would work. I would add the
descriptions to the PL2004 review pages (ideally the descriptions
would be posted and added *before* the discussion period) - the
Nominations page would have a link to the description. When the
final PL2004 selections have been made I would:

Create a web page containing the descriptions of the also-rans and
revise their links on the Nomination page to point to that new
page.

Remove the also-ran descriptions from the PL2004 pages.

Archive the PL2003 pages.

Oh, you are goooood!

Any suggestions for revising the descriptions to improve their
usefulness could be considered during the post-voting discussion
period, I guess.

FYI - the Nominations page looks like this:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

IMO using Lars script improves the Nominations page a lot. It
should be *much* easier this year to check on the status of a
program or category or see if your favorites have been nominated.

Beautiful! Thanks, Lars! Thanks, Susan!