Refactor = change to the structure or content of a
discussion. (01)
As in program organization, refactoring is some
rearrangement that renders things more encapsulated,
modular, or understandable. (02)
Summary = New node or nodes at the left that subsumes
previous content. (03)
As in a technical paper, the summary anticipates the
conclusions that will be reached at the end of the
discourse. (04)
Good organization suggests that material needs to be
refactored when: (05)
a) Does not contribute materially to reaching the
conclusion, or (06)
b) It arises after the conclusion has already been
reached (07)
For (a) the material should be moved elsewhere or removed.
For (b) the material should be moved elsewhere or moved
up into the body of the discussion as additional supporting
evidence or argument. (08)
In an extreme case, material that arrives after the question
has been decided provides such a compelling argument that
the question is necessarily reopened. This is another
refactoring that is essentially an anti-summmary, that looks
like this:
Q: How should this work?
A1: Here's what we thought before
Thread: How we arrived at that conclusion
Counter: Devasting counter argument that made
us reopen the issue. (09)
Q: Are there any other alternatives that might
address the counter argument? (010)
A2: A previously discarded alternative from the
original thread that acquires new life... (011)
A3: Some brand new thing we just thought of... (012)
John Sechrest wrote: (013)
> Is the only difference between summary and refactor that
> the refactor includes a summary and more detail,
> while the summary is without the detail?
>
>
>
> Eric Armstrong <Eric.Armstrong@Sun.COM> writes:
>
> % Original
> % --------
> % Q: Is a summary really needed:
> % Pro: It's helpful to find stuff
> % Anti: It requires refactoring, which is work.
> % Q: What's refactoring?
> % A: It's the ability to rearrange stuff.
> % Info: When I rearrange, I like drag
> % and drop.
> % Response: I like setting a category.
> % Pro: Well we need refactoring anyway.
> % Pro: And summaries are really good.
> % Decision: So let's have summaries
> %
> % Refactored
> % ----------
> % Q: Is a summary really needed:
> % Pro: It's helpful to find stuff
> % Anti: It requires refactoring, which is work.
> % Q: What's refactoring?
> % A: It's the ability to rearrange stuff.
> % Pro: Well we need refactoring anyway.
> % ...other reasons...
> % Pro: And summaries are really good.
> % Decision: So let's have summaries
> %
> % Q: What's the best way to refactor/rearrange things?
> % A1: like drag and drop.
> % A2: I like setting a category.
> %
> % Summarized and Refactored
> % --------------------------
> % 1. We need the ability to summarize.
> % THREAD:
> % Q: Is a summary really needed:
> % Pro: It's helpful to find stuff
> % Anti: It requires refactoring, which is work.
> % Q: What's refactoring?
> % A: It's the ability to rearrange stuff.
> % Pro: Well we need refactoring anyway.
> % ...other reasons...
> % Pro: And summaries are really good.
> % Decision: So let's have summaries
> %
> % 2. We need the ability to refactor
> % THREAD:
> % We need the ability to summarize <link>
> % We need refactoring anyway. <link>
> %
> % 3. Open Issues:
> % Q: What's the best way to refactor/rearrange things?
> % A1: like drag and drop.
> % A2: I like setting a category.
> %
> % At the top level, two distinct requirements have
> % "emerged" from the discussion, along with issues
> % that are still open.
> %
> % John Sechrest wrote:
> %
> % > Eric Armstrong <Eric.Armstrong@Sun.COM> writes:
> % >
> % > % Actually, you've mentioned two problems: The ability to
> % > % refactor, and the ability to create a summary. They are
> % > % indeed *critical* limitations.
> % >
> % > I agree. However, I want to make sure I understand where you
> % > split these two things.
> % >
> % > What do you mean by refactor?
> % >
> % > What do you mean by summary?
> % >
> % >
> % > Where are they different?
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % > % Another major limitation is the inability to display or
> % > % interact with the information in a hierarchical (outline)
> % > % or graphic display capabale of presenting all the relevant
> % > % information in one view, and printing it out.
> % >
> % > I am not clear that this is the same problem space.
> % >
> % > I agree that I wish that I had different views of the material.
> % > And that since I am a list type person, that I could have
> % > my list view of the world readily available to me.
> % >
> % > However, I want MY list view of the world, not the Blog engines view.
> % > And so far , not a single tool that uses lists has provided me with
> % > the value that I see out of the hierarchical (list) view that I seek.
> % >
> % > I think this is a problem, but I think it is a different space than
> % > the blog versus email. Neither of them do hierarchial views right
> % > or usefully.
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % >
> % > % John Sechrest wrote:
> % > %
> % > % > Is the real problem with both blogs and email lists that they
> % > % > never get refactored into a summary?
> % > % >
> % > % >
> % > % >
> % > % >
> % > % > Eric Armstrong <Eric.Armstrong@Sun.COM> writes:
> % > % >
> % > % > % John Sechrest wrote:
> % > % > %
> % > % > % > Interesting. We have an ongoing discussion. we write for this
> % > % > % > particular audience, but we have others not on the list who
> % > % > % > might want to see the work. What is different about
> % > % > % > people looking at the mail archive?
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > Is it the fact that the list is closed?
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > Is it the fact that the archive is not structured properly?
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % That is the major impediment. Blogs are great for putting
> % > % > % information out. But the list of sequential responses gets
> % > % > % unweildy, when it grows. An email archive is only slightly
> % > % > % better -- there's threading, but the real organization is
> % > % > % rarely displayed, and the conclusions are buried deep in
> % > % > % the threads.
> % > % > %
> % > % > % The responses need to be made in an email client that reads
> % > % > % threaded discussions. They need to be archived in a way that
> % > % > % displays the discussions hierarchically when viewed in HTML.
> % > % > %
> % > % > % And the system needs the ability to invert the discussions
> % > % > % so that conclusions get hoisted to the top and the threads
> % > % > % that led to them dangle underneath, for people to inspect
> % > % > % and examine when they care to -- which should lead to additional
> % > % > % arguments leading to new conclusions, after which *they* are
> % > % > % hoisted to the top.
> % > % > %
> % > % > % At that point, the archive becomes fruitful, because the
> % > % > % most important information can be gleaned by skimming the
> % > % > % surface.
> % > % > %
> % > % > % > If we follow my idea that email, wiki, blogs, mail archives,
>web pages
> % > % > % > are all really views of an abstract document, then what happens
> % > % > % > when the blog is really just a mail archive?
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > How would the mail archive behave differently than the blog?
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > Who is reading, that is one interesting example of something
>different.
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > Are there any other?
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > Eugene Eric Kim <eekim@blueoxen.org> writes:
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > % On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 08:57:24PM -0000, Peter P. Jones
>wrote:
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % > Well, I'm slowly getting around to the idea that it's a
>great tool,
> % > % > % > % > but I was actually going to blog privately to track my
>projects.
> % > % > % > % > And one of the reasons I prefer to 'blog' on to the yak
>lists is
> % > % > % > % > because I'm usually talking to something else someone has
>already
> % > % > % > % > decided is relevant.
> % > % > % > % > If I stood on the general soapbox I doubt my views would
>be
> % > % > % > % > particularly enlightening.
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % I'm going to respond to this and John's comment:
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > %
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/yak/2003-12/msg00063.html#nid04
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % here, because I think both of you are saying similar things.
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % First, some stats (a little preview of our upcoming
>report). Between
> % > % > % > % December 2002 and August 2003, 22 different people
>initiated threads
> % > % > % > % on yak, and 21 different people initiated threads on
>tools-yak. The
> % > % > % > % top ten initiators on both lists were:
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % yak: tools-yak:
> % > % > % > % 84 Jack Park 45 Jack Park
> % > % > % > % 24 Eugene Eric Kim 27 Eugene Eric Kim
> % > % > % > % 16 Andrius Kulikauskas 24 Chris Dent
> % > % > % > % 10 Eric Armstrong 16 Peter Jones
> % > % > % > % 10 Dorai Thodla 10 Eric Armstrong
> % > % > % > % 9 Peter Jones 9 Andrius Kulikauskas
> % > % > % > % 9 Chris Dent 7 Tom Munnecke
> % > % > % > % 8 Tom Munnecke 6 Danny Ayers
> % > % > % > % 4 Sheldon Chang 5 Brian Lincoln
> % > % > % > % 4 John Sechrest 4 Mike Mell
> % > % > % > % 4 Garold Johnson
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % Not to read too deeply into these stats, but I would claim
>that if
> % > % > % > % you're initiating a lot of threads (as you are, Peter),
>you're
> % > % > % > % actually posting before others have decided whether the
>topic is
> % > % > % > % relevant or not. (I'm quite certain John would be in the
>top ten as
> % > % > % > % well if we took into account the past three months as well.)
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % Now, I know I'm nitpicking on language here, and I think I
>get what
> % > % > % > % you're actually saying. What I want to say is, people in
>this forum
> % > % > % > % have an advantage over other bloggers in that we already
>have an
> % > % > % > % audience -- each other. When it comes to my own blog, I
>write as if
> % > % > % > % my audience is you folks.
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % Blogging is a very strange mix of being both a personal
>space and a
> % > % > % > % public soapbox. Half-baked ideas posted to a mailing list
>may not
> % > % > % > % garner any response and may even be looked down upon,
>because they
> % > % > % > % take up valuable space in people's inboxes. But, they're
>perfectly
> % > % > % > % appropriate on a blog. The twist is, while people on a
>mailing list
> % > % > % > % might not want to hear your idea, there might be many
>people not on
> % > % > % > % the list who do. If you blog, you're more likely to
>attract that
> % > % > % > % audience. If you post it to a list, that audience will
>very likely
> % > % > % > % never see it.
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % I posted more half-baked thoughts on this in a previous blog
> % > % > % > % entry. :-)
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % http://www.eekim.com/blog/2003/07/15/whineinprivate#nid1G
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % One more thing on audiences. Knowing your audience is
>important if
> % > % > % > % you want to improve as a communicator. One of the things
>Tom often
> % > % > % > % complains about is that there's no way to know who's
>reading messages
> % > % > % > % sent to this list. He's absolutely right. What Tom wants
>is
> % > % > % > % essentially impossible to achieve with e-mail. That's not
>the case
> % > % > % > % with blogs, and in fact, the blogging community has
>coevolved tools to
> % > % > % > % help them see who's reading their stuff. This is another
>reason why
> % > % > % > % the blogging community has been so successful -- they are
>active
> % > % > % > % practitioners of coevolution.
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % -Eugene
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % --
> % > % > % > % Was I helpful? Let others know.
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > %
>http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=eekim&p=EnablingOnlineCommunities
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > % --
> % > % > % > % This message is archived at:
> % > % > % > %
> % > % > % > %
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=20031204221001.GG14113@douge.blueoxen.net
> % > % > % >
> % > % > % > -----
> % > % > % > John Sechrest . Helping people use
> % > % > % > . computers and the Internet
> % > % > % > . more effectively
> % > % > % > .
> % > % > % > . Internet:
>sechrest@peak.org
> % > % > % > .
> % > % > % > .
>http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
> % > % > % >
> % > % > %
> % > % > %
> % > % > % --
> % > % > % This message is archived at:
> % > % > %
> % > % > %
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FD10598.1030202@sun.com
> % > % >
> % > % > -----
> % > % > John Sechrest . Helping people use
> % > % > . computers and the Internet
> % > % > . more effectively
> % > % > .
> % > % > . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
> % > % > .
> % > % > .
>http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
> % > % >
> % > %
> % > %
> % > % --
> % > % This message is archived at:
> % > %
> % > %
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FD4E52B.2050306@sun.com
> % >
> % > -----
> % > John Sechrest . Helping people use
> % > . computers and the Internet
> % > . more effectively
> % > .
> % > . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
> % > .
> % > .
>http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
> % >
> %
> %
> % --
> % This message is archived at:
> %
> %
>http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FD51123.1060802@sun.com
>
> -----
> John Sechrest . Helping people use
> . computers and the Internet
> . more effectively
> .
> . Internet: sechrest@peak.org
> .
> . http://www.peak.org/~sechrest
> (014)
--
This message is archived at: (015)
http://collab.blueoxen.net/forums/cgi-bin/mesg.cgi?a=yak&i=3FD51A4A.9030908@sun.com (016)
|