Pricelessware Simplification

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frank Bohan
  • Start date Start date
F

Frank Bohan

FWIW I think the entire process of selection could be simplified. All that
is needed is to retain the existing list, except for the following:

1. Nominations of additional programs, with a process of selection by
support or veto.
2. Proposals for deletions from the existing list, with reasons and an
opportunity to disagree.
3. Proposals for alterations, i.e. new categories, altered URLs, revised
versions etc.

This would save bandwidth and duplication and make the compilation of the
new list much easier. This is not to be interpreted as a criticism of
Susan's work, which is greatly appreciated.

===

Frank Bohan
¶ When in darkness or in doubt, run in circles scream and shout.
 
FWIW I think the entire process of selection could be simplified. All that
is needed is to retain the existing list, except for the following:
Click to expand...
1. Nominations of additional programs, with a process of selection by
support or veto.
Yep.

2. Proposals for deletions from the existing list, with reasons and an
opportunity to disagree.
Yep.

3. Proposals for alterations, i.e. new categories, altered URLs, revised
versions etc.
Click to expand...

Yep.

< snip >

I suggested something similar in past years. Getting details of
programs that might not get enough votes seems rather inefficient IMO.

Regards, John.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/
 
The current PL schedule:

October 15 - October 31, 2005 - Program nominations, seconds and
program discussion.

Are you two volunteering to take over the Pricelessware selection
process or are you just trolling?
Click to expand...
Where's Genna Reeney? Oh yeah, you stabbed her in the back and then
lied about it. Karma.
 
Just what this newsgroup needs. Another troll. . .
Click to expand...
I guess a "troll" is anyone who knows the truth. You are a lying,
backstabbing, control-freakish bitch. That's the truth. Deal with
it.
 
FWIW I think the entire process of selection could be simplified. All
that is needed is to retain the existing list, except for the
following:

1. Nominations of additional programs, with a process of selection by
support or veto.
2. Proposals for deletions from the existing list, with reasons and an
opportunity to disagree.
3. Proposals for alterations, i.e. new categories, altered URLs,
revised versions etc.

This would save bandwidth and duplication and make the compilation of
the new list much easier. This is not to be interpreted as a criticism
of Susan's work, which is greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why do the same programs that have not changed need to be
submitted for this nomination process every year? The perfect example is
Kerio 2.1.5. The program has not changed in over three years, yet it must
cause all this needless discussion every year to be renominated.
 
elaich said:
@newsfeed.slurp.net:

Maybe they are suggesting that your process is inefficient.
Click to expand...

Oh they are, they are. Of course, neither one of them has ever done a
lick of the work. . . Intelligent people might wonder if they know
what they're talking about (they don't). ;)

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
elaich said:
Exactly. Why do the same programs that have not changed need to be
submitted for this nomination process every year? The perfect example is
Kerio 2.1.5. The program has not changed in over three years, yet it must
cause all this needless discussion every year to be renominated.
Click to expand...

Just post the list of all the PL2005 programs that haven't changed.

erm. . . you'll have to check *every* program on PL2005 before you can
do that.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
| Oh they are, they are. Of course, neither one of them has ever done a
| lick of the work.

Stop your crying and get back to work.....SLAVE
You wanted the job, you got the job.
Now everyone sees your true colors....Loser control freak.
You can't even take simple suggestions without bitching about all the
work you do.
You're the one that added all the crap pages like webware, mentioned
in ACF and on and on.
You're such an idiot.
 
Susan Bugher said:
The current PL schedule:

October 15 - October 31, 2005 - Program nominations, seconds and program
discussion.

Are you two volunteering to take over the Pricelessware selection process
or are you just trolling?

Susan
Click to expand...

Neither, Susan, and as I said, no criticism of your work was intended. Just
trying to suggest possible labour saving improvements.

===

Frank Bohan
¶ He who has imagination without learning has wings but no feet.
 
Now everyone sees your true colors....Loser control freak.
Click to expand...

Now you'll be labeled troll. Funny how everyone who sees her
accurately suddenly becomes a troll, isn't it?
 
Mike Andrade said:
Now you'll be labeled troll. Funny how everyone who sees her
accurately suddenly becomes a troll, isn't it?

--
Mike
A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need
the advice.
- Bill Cosby
Click to expand...

Seems to me you are doing a pretty good troll imitation.
 
The current PL schedule:

October 15 - October 31, 2005 - Program nominations, seconds and program
discussion.

Are you two volunteering to take over the Pricelessware selection
process or are you just trolling?

Susan
Click to expand...

good example of what I meant when I said that sometimes I don't like
the way Susan operates - doesn't mean I don't appreciate the work she
does....

I also note from other threads that Susan has suffered a lot of
personal abuse -hope my post was not interpreted as that - seems I
miss a lot of the abusive posts as I have a number of people killfiled
when they do that.

Susan -I think these posts were trying to help - in fact, there was
really no doubt in my mind they were helpful, and carefully written in
an attempt to ensure you took no offence. Perhaps an apology might
calm things down, and get you the support you, and this group, needs
right now ?

HTH
 
Neither, Susan, and as I said, no criticism of your work was intended. Just
trying to suggest possible labour saving improvements.
Click to expand...

I apologize for lumping you in with John F. (who posted with malice
aforethought). IMO however your suggestions display a lack of
understanding of the work that must be done. . .

The present process is:

1. post new/revised program descriptions [newsgroup participants]

2. post ONE list of eligible programs [point person]

3. nominate/second programs that are on the list [newsgroup participants]

4. post ONE ballot (list of programs that were nominated and seconded)
[pooint person]

5. cast ballots [newgroup participants]

6. count the ballots, select preliminary Pricelessware List [point person]

7. discussion, final selection [newsgroup participants]

Posting single lists for nominations/voting makes the tracking process
much easier than it used to be. Your "simplification" seems to call for
a return to chaos. Your proposal ignores the elephant in the bedroom -
the task of preparing/checking/revising program description. That's the
issue that must be addressed and resolved.


Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
 
I apologize for lumping you in with John F. (who posted with malice
aforethought). IMO however your suggestions display a lack of
understanding of the work that must be done. . .
Click to expand...

Would you like to explain your thinking behind the assumption that
John, a regular poster to the group, posted with malice aforethought ?
The present process is:

1. post new/revised program descriptions [newsgroup participants]

2. post ONE list of eligible programs [point person]

3. nominate/second programs that are on the list [newsgroup participants]

4. post ONE ballot (list of programs that were nominated and seconded)
[pooint person]

5. cast ballots [newgroup participants]

6. count the ballots, select preliminary Pricelessware List [point person]

7. discussion, final selection [newsgroup participants]
Click to expand...

The suggestions you are receiving are trying to simplify the above
process, as it seems to too much work for one person. However, you
seem to want to retain control of the whole process - it has to be
done your way, no-one allowed to suggest an alternative without being
accused of being a troll, and with you then moaning about the work
your rules cause you !!!
Posting single lists for nominations/voting makes the tracking process
much easier than it used to be. Your "simplification" seems to call for
a return to chaos. Your proposal ignores the elephant in the bedroom -
the task of preparing/checking/revising program description. That's the
issue that must be addressed and resolved.


Susan
Click to expand...

lets get back to common sense - there was a huge number of people
devoted to freeware who used to post here, and take part - they seem
to have gone their own way - I wonder why ? Son of Spy for example,
genna Reeney and others.

Susan, please relax, and things will get better ! You do a great job,
but when stressed, you certainly piss me off, and seem to do the same
for others !
 
Susan Bugher wrote:

First, I am as sad as everybody else to see the personal attacks on
you.

But there are a few angry young men here who have been around for a
long time, and we all know that they are a very small minority. We are
a lot of people who support you.

I think you should have a lot to say about how to do things, as you are
the one who is actually doing most of the job.
1. post new/revised program descriptions [newsgroup participants]

2. post ONE list of eligible programs [point person]

3. nominate/second programs that are on the list [newsgroup participants]

4. post ONE ballot (list of programs that were nominated and seconded)
[pooint person]
Click to expand...

I support your method. I just want to mention that I have studied
wikipedia.org for some time, and it is surprising how well it works, in
spite of it being a totally open wiki, anybody can change anything,
without even being logged in.

Maybe it is because there are so many writers who monitor changes,
reverting vandalism, discussing on talk pages about what to include or
delete.

One possibility we could consider is to put last year's list in a wiki,
and let people edit, add and delete as they like. Maybe one page per
program and a template for new additions.

It sounds like it could never work, I know, but look at wikipedia, it
looks good and contains more than half a million pages, and that is
only the english section.

The reasons why it couldn't work for us:

Because the proportion between serious people and vandals is worse
here???
Because we are too few?? I kind of don't think any of these reasons are
really valid.

In wikipedia I and many others have our favorite pages we put on our
watch lists. I look at my watchlist now and then during a normal day,
and I can easily see the differences between revisions. If somebody
adds a few dirty words in the middle of a big text I see that
difference easily and I revert that change, adding the comment:
Reverting vandalism.

I have also added and rewritten pages, and I have experienced how other
editors go in and help me with the formatting and the language
sometimes but leaving my new content, obviously the most accepting
reaction.

Check out the article about Interlingua where I added three versions of
a short text sample so people can compare english, interlingua and
esperanto, for example.

There are other problems like political and religious issues, but the
editing and monitoring process works much better than one could ever
expect hearing that anybody can change anything.

If somebody knows how to set up a wiki wants to try this it would be
interesting to try it .
 
Back
Top