Re: Shadow Wednesday
Subject: Re: Shadow Wednesday
From: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
Date: 12/6/10, 22:05
To: "Vertesi.com" <campbell@vertesi.com>
CC: Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com>, Emma Allan <emilieduchatelet8@gmail.com>, "dynamicuno@gmail.com" <dynamicuno@gmail.com>, SundeepGottipati <gsundeep@gmail.com>, Clark Robinson <robinsonchicago@gmail.com>, Mano Singham <mano.singham@case.edu>

It looks like I'm probably not going to have time to think about this just now, so let's plan to discuss it on Wednesday evening. I also believe our new participant Ken Lipp will be attending to begin discussions on the specifics of how we can assist in his Third World health development effort. Here's a link to the announcement I made today which in turn links to Lipp's announcement; please spread the word to anyone who might be interested in participating either on our end or under Kenneth's First Praxis project.

http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/12/first-praxis-information-based-developmental-health-project-launched-by-cambridge-researcher/

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Vertesi.com <campbell@vertesi.com> wrote:
I didn't hear about any proposed series of punishments, but I'd be interested to.

Sundeep and I had discussed a probationary period, wherein your inviting blogger's reputation score would reflect the quality of the invitee's posts. We considered this to be a very powerful way to ensure that quality begets quality. People on probation don't necessarily see any disadvantage in this situation, so I don't understand how this could be a disincentive to join.

Perhaps we're talking about two different probationary period ideas?

C

Le Dec 5, 2010 à 18:18, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> a écrit :

The probationary period as well as the proposed series of punishments from earlier were rejected because they would antagonize a lot of potential bloggers and prompt some not to join in the first place, whereas we think the schematic will be sufficient to handle any problems those are intended to solve. For instance, I'd be disinclined to join any such network, and obviously I need to be able to sincerely convince others to join. 

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 7:36 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
Can someone refresh my memory on why the probationary period was rejected? Sorry but my memory sucks.


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
No, the changes appear to be fine. I've also made changes to the other document on specs to remove the portion regarding a probationary period for bloggers as per our conversation with Campbell and the others.


On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Scott Mintz <scott.w.mintz@gmail.com> wrote:
So I see Shadow has made some modifications to the Initial Release Spec document Sundeep created.

I didn't notice any gross changes so I assume the adjustments were both minor and benign.

Since I was curious who this Shadow Wednesday was I did some quick Googling and came the conclusion that Shadow is associated with Quebec's branch of Anonymous.

Barrett, I take it I need not concern myself with the changes?



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302




--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302



--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302