|
|
| Author |
Message |
albaugh
|
|
New conference proposals
| 
Nov 30 07:06 UTC 1996 |
This is where you should enter proposals for new conferences.
The normal procedure is this: People kick around your suggestion for a
while - say, a week or two. If the cfadms see that there's a lot of
interest, they'll normally email you to discuss a few details. If they
don't, you can email cfadm to say *you're* still interested, and the
conference will be set up.
Obviously, there are no guarantees that anyone will ever join or read
your conference. If this matters to you, you may want to gauge others'
interest before starting. (We've had a very few people grouse along
the lines of "What's wrong with this system, anyway? I set up this
neat conference, but it's been completely dead!". Other
conferences have just quietly expired, to nobody's apparent dismay.)
Ideally, you should propose a name for the conference, give some idea
what it's intended to discuss or accomplish, and propose a fairwitness
or fairwitnesses - preferably with the agreement of those you propose.
|
| 66 responses total. |
albaugh
|
|
response 1 of 66:
|
Nov 30 07:08 UTC 1996 |
I created the coop9 version of this item because when I try to join the
newly created "classicalmusic" conference I am told "Failed security
checkpoint". We all agreed that this was a good, new conference to have.
But it appears that its creation ran into a snafu, at least for me...
|
remmers
|
|
response 2 of 66:
|
Nov 30 11:15 UTC 1996 |
(It's been created; we're just waiting for the fw's to set up
initial items and give the word to open it to the public.)
|
tsty
|
|
response 3 of 66:
|
Dec 1 06:29 UTC 1996 |
it would appear that UNTIl there is an announcement taht some
spefic conference HAS been created (in the cfadm item in coop) there
is no conference.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 4 of 66:
|
Dec 1 07:52 UTC 1996 |
Yabut, if you try to "join foofoo" you're told there ain't no conference
"foofoo". But for "classicalmusic" you get this other funky thing...
|
remmers
|
|
response 5 of 66:
|
Dec 1 12:22 UTC 1996 |
Right -- it's been created (and I think announced), but the fw's
haven't given the word to open it up to the public.
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 66:
|
Dec 1 15:55 UTC 1996 |
... adn at that 'funky thing' type join <real conference name> and
presto, funky-gone.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 7 of 66:
|
Dec 2 01:39 UTC 1996 |
You miss my point: If it's an existing conference, join does what you'd
expect. If it's a nonexistent conference, you're told "no such conf."
For the undead classicalmusic conference, you get the "halt, who goes there?"
"hands up or I'll shoot" response. :-)
|
scg
|
|
response 8 of 66:
|
Dec 2 05:38 UTC 1996 |
Right, because it exists as a closed conference, while the fws are getting
it ready.
|
dang
|
|
response 9 of 66:
|
Dec 2 13:19 UTC 1996 |
If you tried to get into the Staff conference without being on staff, I
imagine you'd get the same response.
|
krj
|
|
response 10 of 66:
|
Dec 3 01:03 UTC 1996 |
Both fws of classicalmusic have been away on holiday travel.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 11 of 66:
|
Dec 3 17:18 UTC 1996 |
Then I'd submit that the message be "Closed conference" or "You are not
authorized to join this conference" instead of "failed security checkpoint"...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 12 of 66:
|
Dec 3 18:04 UTC 1996 |
Classical is open now - but I can't respond in it as every time I have
tried (4), my connection to Grex breaks without notice. (The rhyming
version of that is in the System Prblems item in agora.)
|
remmers
|
|
response 13 of 66:
|
Dec 3 18:17 UTC 1996 |
New conference proposals, anyone?
|
arabella
|
|
response 14 of 66:
|
Dec 3 19:09 UTC 1996 |
Sorry for the delay in opening the classical music conference.
It's open for business now. (The FW does a dance of regret.)
|
popcorn
|
|
response 15 of 66:
|
Dec 4 10:02 UTC 1996 |
Kevin -- You're proposing a change to Picospan that would, I *think* require
a change to the source code. Unfortunately, Grex doesn't have the source code
to Picospan.
I propose a "web" conference, for people to talk about web page design.
I'm still talking to people about fair witnessing it. So far we've got robh,
me, and maybe srw. I'm very much hoping that ajax and janc will be co-fw's
too.
I'm also thinking of proposing a one-person-business conference, for people
starting small businesses. I want to send some e-mail to people who I know
of who have one-person businesses, to see if they would participate, before
making definite plans to create this conference.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 66:
|
Dec 4 13:00 UTC 1996 |
I think that a "web" conference is an excellent idea. But why
does it need 5 fairwitnesses? The folks you mentioned would be
great participants, but I see no gain in their being
fairwitnesses as well.
|
draven
|
|
response 17 of 66:
|
Dec 4 17:33 UTC 1996 |
I agree with remmers. It's an excellent idea for a conference, but
five FWs is a bit excessive.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 18 of 66:
|
Dec 4 17:48 UTC 1996 |
but since the author of picospan iss a grexer (marcus), I assume
he could either provide thesource codeor make the changes himself if he
felt like it.
|
janc
|
|
response 19 of 66:
|
Dec 4 18:18 UTC 1996 |
The author of Picospan isn't the owner of Picospan. He sold it to NETI who
licensed Unicom to distribute it. NETI went bankrupt, but Marcus is part
of Unicom. The rights to Picospan are, so far as I know, in a muddle.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 20 of 66:
|
Dec 7 21:25 UTC 1996 |
Just checking: You thing the volume & diversity of web things would warrant
a separate conference, as opposed to just using the existing internet conf.?
|
tsty
|
|
response 21 of 66:
|
Dec 9 05:58 UTC 1996 |
maybe a web conference could be the only backtalk-available conference
until grex gets more bandwidth? <just a question>
|
popcorn
|
|
response 22 of 66:
|
Dec 9 08:27 UTC 1996 |
Re 16: Yup, 5 fair witnesses is a lot, especially for a conference that isn't
likely to be high in traffic. But I couldn't think of a reason why any given
person on that list was more or less qualified to be a fw than any other
person on the list, so I figured I'd ask them all.
Re 20: I haven't been in the Internet conference recently, so I don't know
what the current discussions there are about. I was under the impression that
it's more of a place for people to discuss how to use the Internet and neat
sites to see there. I envision the web conference as a place for web
developers to talk specifically about writing web pages.
Re 21: There's no way to make a conference web-only. Also, as I understand
it, Picospan uses fewer resources than Backtalk, so forcing people to use
Backtalk would actually use more resources.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 66:
|
Dec 9 12:55 UTC 1996 |
Re #22: It wasn't the asking a bunch of people that puzzled me,
but rather the "very much hoping" you expressed that they'd all
accept.
|
scg
|
|
response 24 of 66:
|
Dec 9 15:47 UTC 1996 |
I don't think TS was suggesting that we make the web conference backtalk only.
He was suggesting that we not allow any other conferences to be used with
BackTalk.
|