<cdent@blueoxen.org> writes: (01)
% > I was thinking that "user filtering to folders" as a pretty low
% > level activity/rule. And that perhaps you really had
% > rules like: (02)
% > Put all the transiant mail into side folders,
% > put copies of important messages into Xyz.important folder. (03)
% Nope. I have something less than 20 incoming mail folders that I
% automatically scan (tab in pine) when reading mail. If I see a
% mail I want to respond to or needs further thought, I don't
% delete it. Otherwise I delete it, unless it is "personal" mail,
% in which case it gets saved, as some sort of honorific for the
% sender. If you have a big folder in my collection it must mean I
% like you lots :) (04)
that is very interesting. (05)
I process probably 700-1500 messages a day. (06)
Most of it system junk. And I throw away lots. (07)
However, I am a packrat. (08)
I keep records of all my outgoing mail.
I keep records of all my incoming mail.
(IE, I have logs of it) (09)
Some things I automatically file (with procmail) invisibly
to me (010)
Some things I semi-automatically file with a script.
So that I see the titles. (011)
Everything else, I touch. (012)
and then I keep copies of all the interesting stuff. (013)
given that 100G of disk is $100 these days, I see
no reason not to just keep everything. (014)
I currently have 3690 messages in my inbox. Most of which
I have touched, but which I did not file. (015)
I will move this of into a corner in about 3 months. (016)
I have all of the mail anyone has sent me in the last 7 years. (017)
So when someone says, I sent you an email about XXX,
I usually can find it. (018)
% > When I touch a message with a link that I want, put a copy
% > of that link into XYZ web page (019)
% When I receive a message with a link in it, the part of the
% message that I find important is not the link, but the text with
% it: the commentary from the sender. Sometimes the sender has
% achieved authority (by previous commentary) that makes a link
% worth following, even without commentary. (020)
% I think of people sending me email as pre-masticators. Same with
% blogs and google news. (021)
Yes. Very nice to have them. (022)
I don't have a current pattern that manages effectively the
datastreams from the pre-masticators. (023)
I just have piles, I have to learn how to organize them better. (024)
% > Sometimes they over heat. And they need some pacing to keep
% > everyone involved. Otherwise, you get two people blasting away
% > at each other at 50 miles an hour, and everyone else starts to
% > skip the messages. (025)
% If people aren't inclined to be involved, doesn't that mean the
% messages aren't important. I don't mean that they aren't
% potentially important, but that they don't have actualized
% importance in the collective eyes of the audience. (026)
Not in the world that I live in. I generally have many interests.
More than I have time to process. So when things become urgent,
I often loose track of a thread. I simply can not respond,
because I have no more cycles for large chunks of time. (027)
for example, before last term started, I was in a good conversation
with Gary about wiki types and examples. When the
winter term started, I was overwhelmed with tasks.
And so, I set aside the wiki conversation with gary. (028)
It is still important, but it has gotten no cycles for
2 months. (029)
I need to pick it back up. (030)
To say that I must always make important conversations the
center of my activities does not match the resources
that I have. (031)
Only if I could dedicate time to the project at a high enough
level. And that would mean that I would have to be able
to block out time for it. Which means that I probably would
have to create a revenue stream to given me the chance
to free up the time. But when I am doing this on the side
as a side project, it falls below the water from time to time
when classes, or system admin crisis work gets in the way. (032)
% > Is not one of the higher level collaborative tasks the processs
% > of collecting different information , sorting and grooming it
% > and representing it back to the group in a more ordered way>? (033)
% Is it? That seems to be a rule that is created and enforced in
% situations where the shared goal has not been sufficiently
% defined. In situations where it has been (in covenanting groups),
% I'd argue that information sharing happens "naturally" as a
% result of the movement toward the goal. (034)
I find that people are willing to spit out content, but they
are rarely trained or willing to be trained at refactoring
or reforming the data. (035)
I do not experience this natural refactoring at all. (036)
% So, I think that we have two types of collaborators: (037)
% - the kind in covenanting groups that have been "turned on" and
% get things done: (038)
% http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2003-03/msg00085.html#nid08 (039)
% - people who want to collaborate, but haven't chosen a solid goal (040)
% The latter type must enforce a certain rigorous attitude toward
% information sharing (because they are not swept up), and might be
% described as people who all go to the same swimming hole, like
% the company, enjoy a good barbeque but go into the pool in turns,
% taking what they need, and leaving behind some contribution or
% other. (041)
Wow. That is certainly not how I would characterize the world. (042)
% --
% Chris Dent
% cdent@blueoxen.org
%
% --
% This message is archived at:
%
%
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=Pine.LNX.4.30.0303221852430.32583-100000@hot.burningchrome.com
% (043)
-----
John Sechrest . Helping people use
CTO PEAK - . computers and the Internet
Public Electronic . more effectively
Access to Knowledge,Inc .
1600 SW Western, Suite 180 . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
Corvallis Oregon 97333 . (541) 754-7325
. http://www.peak.org/~sechrest (044)
--
This message is archived at: (045)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=200303230118.h2N1IoA26430@jas.peak.org (046)
|