🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <18657@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au> jim@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (Jim Underwood) writes:

>It seems to me that groupware will be more useful if it supports quite a
>different model of discussion.  Draft articles would be criticised,
>supported, provisionally amended and otherwise discussed by named persons.
>(Named so that regular contributors would get an idea of each other's
>views and values).  Eventually a small subgroup would form which would
>"run" with the article and beat it into its final form.  Other subgroups 
>might produce opposing articles.  From time to time the discussion group
>would split and completely independent groups form.  Other groups might 
>merge.  Of course it might be hard for authors to "own" ideas, but that's
>another problem.

Well, this is fine if you're looking at something as static as a
typical journal. It would take quite a while for an article to see the
light of day. Most usenet newsgroups, on the other hand, work on quite
quick turn-around and produce some quite interesting information.

>The trouble with statistical or any other automated form of moderation
>(the expert system editor?) is that they objectify the relationships
>among the group members, and these relationships are exactly what makes
>the group work.

However, if the object is to produce something like a well-moderated
comp.unix.wizards newsgroup, such methods might provide a way do get
the articles out quickly. Your idea of groupware would never work for
such a group.

Different problems have different solutions. Too bad nobody has a
prototype for each.