On 12/7/10, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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>
>>
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>
>>>
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>
>>>>
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
>