🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4318@nttmhs.ntt.JP>, yam@nttmhs.ntt.jp (Toshihiko YAMAKAMI) says:
>
> What types of high level group communication
>protocols do we use in group activities?

Just thinking off the top of my hat 8-)

1.  Some of my communications are 'informational'.  I don't expect any reply,
and I don't care if they are dealt with or not.

2.  Some are 'requests'.  "Can I have $xxx to buy a widget?"  I'd really
prefer a yes or not answer within a particular time frame, with the possibility
of a 'yes, if...' and 'no, but...' answers, to.

3.  Some are 'responses to requests'.

4.  Some are 'prposals', as in "I think we should do Z."  I want to sesome disc
ussion of the merits of Z, followed by some determination of Yes, let's
do Z or No, let's not do Z within some fixed amount of time, with Table Z
as another possible option.

5.  With 4 comes the ugly spectre of Amendments, Discussions, Points
of Order, voting, and so on.

6.  Some are 'arguments'.  Joe says let's do Z, and I say "No, because"
or "Yes, because".  At some point, Janet says, "Lee's 'No, bacause' is invalid
because...", and most people agree with her.

That's all I can think of right now.

> Is it better to realize such protocols in communication systems?
> Ot is it hard to pick up such high level communiction primitives?


I think it is worth trying.  As you say earlier, most of our current
email systems do not distinguish among the many types of messages that
get passed.  It seems reasonable to try adding structure.  For example,
if I send someone a 'request', it should include a Reply By: field,
and the underlying software could enforce it by forcing the recipient
to reply by that time or else ...

Or else what?  I dunno.  How about (a) their boss gets a weekly report of
the number of reply deadlines they missed, (b) their terminal locks up
until they reply, (c) the answer is 'yes'?
>