Thread Summaries

CSGnet Archive CSG1999
1

[From Bill Curry (991129.1435 EST)]

Rick Marken (991129.0820) in re

> Bill Curry (991128.2055 EST)

> Also there is no mechanism at the conclusion of a run to concisely
> sum up what has been learned, added or changed by all those
> keyboard hours of expended energy.

I think it would be great if someone would act as a sort of referee
and try to sum up the main points of each thread. I think that the
final summary should be agreed to by all parties to the thread. But
I agree that such a summary could be very useful. Would you like to
be the first referee? Maybe you could put together a summary of the
two sides of the debate about "giving a choice" and see if we can
agree on what we disagree about.

Sorry, I don't have time for the recap on "choice". Thinking prospectively,
rather than a thread _referee_ [sounds potentially coercive like those damn
traffic cops ;-)], what would be the reaction to having the thread
_initiator_ responsible for providing a DRAFT summary to which final
dissenting summary views could be appended? Then the whole shebang could be
reposted under the title "FINAL SUMMARY--[Thread Name]".

I can think of several advantages to having a thread summary procedure:
        � The thread participants have an incentive to be focused and parsimonious
in reaching a conclusion.
        � Some sense of closure is realized by all involved.
        � Important thoughts are captured in a distilled, easily searchable form
        � Thread summaries would be a great timesaver for those not following post
by post.

Reactions?

Regards,

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

2

from [ Marc Abrams (991129.1934) ]

[From Bill Curry (991129.1435 EST)]

Rick:

> I think it would be great if someone would act as a sort of referee
> and try to sum up the main points of each thread. I think that the
> final summary should be agreed to by all parties to the thread. But
> I agree that such a summary could be very useful. Would you like to
> be the first referee? Maybe you could put together a summary of the
> two sides of the debate about "giving a choice" and see if we can
> agree on what we disagree about.

Bill

Sorry, I don't have time for the recap on "choice".

Here is part of the problem Bill. Well intentioned people who simply do not
have the "bandwidth" to contribute much. We are a small group. And even a
smaller pct. of us actually do any posting. Some of us ( like myself ) are
in position, time wise to help out when we can. I believe we do.

Thinking prospectively,
rather than a thread _referee_ [sounds potentially coercive like those

damn

traffic cops ;-)], what would be the reaction to having the thread
_initiator_ responsible for providing a DRAFT summary to which final
dissenting summary views could be appended? Then the whole shebang could

be

reposted under the title "FINAL SUMMARY--[Thread Name]".

Have you seen a copy of the _Closed Loop_, edited a number of years ago by
Craig Williams ?. A real gem. He effectively chose a thread every quarter
and made it into a printed conversation. Lots of time and effort. It would
be nice to see that ( or something like that ) again. ( I am working in that
direction with the archives, or at least trying to :slight_smile: )

I can think of several advantages to having a thread summary procedure:
        . The thread participants have an incentive to be focused and

parsimonious

in reaching a conclusion.
        . Some sense of closure is realized by all involved.
        . Important thoughts are captured in a distilled, easily

searchable form

        . Thread summaries would be a great timesaver for those not

following post

by post.

Reactions?

Sounds wonderful, who's going to do it?

Marc

3

[From Bill Curry (991129.2135 EST)]

Marc Abrams (991129.1934) in re

> Bill Curry (991129.1435 EST)]

> Sorry, I don't have time for the recap on "choice".

Here is part of the problem Bill. Well intentioned people who simply do not
have the "bandwidth" to contribute much. We are a small group. And even a
smaller pct. of us actually do any posting. Some of us ( like myself ) are
in position, time wise to help out when we can. I believe we do.

Have you seen a copy of the _Closed Loop_, edited a number of years ago by
Craig Williams ?. A real gem. He effectively chose a thread every quarter
and made it into a printed conversation. Lots of time and effort. It would
be nice to see that ( or something like that ) again. ( I am working in that
direction with the archives, or at least trying to :slight_smile: )

Yes, I've seen some of Craig's work and it is terrific [as are your efforts
to make the archives more accessible]...but as you point out, this level of
involvement is beyond the capacity of most of us.

> I can think of several advantages to having a thread summary procedure <snip>

Sounds wonderful, who's going to do it?

The proposal was that the person who started the thread would summarize its
_key conclusions_ in a short post [not a review of the whole history of the
thread]. Others could append clarifications/dissents. Since the thread
initiator is seeking information or testing a position, she or he is the
logical party to write the thread synopsis. Why wouldn't that work?

Regards,

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

4

from [ Marc Abrams (991129.2231) ]

[From Bill Curry (991129.2135 EST)]

The proposal was that the person who started the thread would summarize

its

_key conclusions_ in a short post [not a review of the whole history of

the

thread]. Others could append clarifications/dissents. Since the thread
initiator is seeking information or testing a position, she or he is the
logical party to write the thread synopsis. Why wouldn't that work?

Again, It sounds wonderful. But let me share some of my archive experiences
and pose some questions;

What do you do when you have a 230 _page_ thread. As we did with Randall
Beers.

"Summarizing" even a 10 post thread can be time consuming. Pick a recent
thread ( anyone ) and try it.

What happens when a thread _diverges_. This happens a lot. Or, when one
person will answer multi-people/topics at the same time. Bill does this
religously. _LOTS_ of editing. LOTS of time, and LOTS of work.

If someone _wants_ to do it, that would be terrific but I for one would not.
I don't have the desire or time to deal with every thread.

Marc

5

[From Samuel Saunders (991130.1330 EST)]

I think the general idea of a summary is a good one. I see problems with
expecting the starter of a thread to do the summary:
   1. It is not always clear who starts a particular conversation. Some
issues arrise from one conversation, and then later become a thread of their
own.
   2. It does not encourage people to ask questinos or raise points to lnow
that they will be expected to write a summary.
   3. It is not always clear what the issues are in a given thread that
need a summary, or that the context of a given thread is the best one in
which to consider an issue. The conflict-RTP-social control-bash Rick
thread is a good example; I suspect that differenct participants would see
the key questions as different in that thread.
   4. A substantial number of threads trace back to a small number of
people, with Bill and Rick having a particularly large representation.
Expecting the summary for each issue from these frequent posters is unfair
to them.

Perhaps the best course would be to attempt to establish a custom that
anyone who feels ready to write a summary will post a thread with the key
word SUMMARY in the title and, by doing so, agree to collect all comments
for a reasonable period of time (say 2 weeks), then post the summary with
attached comments. To ease the task of collecting comments, it would help
if cooments were sent directly instead of or in addition to being posted.
As a last thought, someone who sees a set of potntially related questions
might use this mechanism to post a SUMMARY which raises the questions,
without reviewing any answers, and then collect answers to post; this would
reduce the burden on the SUMARYY poster. (Should there be a second round of
comments ? Certainly no more than that.)

···

On Mon, Nov 29, 1999 at 09:35:59PM -0500, Bill Curry wrote:

[From Bill Curry (991129.2135 EST)]

> Marc Abrams (991129.1934) in re

> > Bill Curry (991129.1435 EST)]

> > Sorry, I don't have time for the recap on "choice".

> Here is part of the problem Bill. Well intentioned people who simply do not
> have the "bandwidth" to contribute much. We are a small group. And even a
> smaller pct. of us actually do any posting. Some of us ( like myself ) are
> in position, time wise to help out when we can. I believe we do.

> Have you seen a copy of the _Closed Loop_, edited a number of years ago by
> Craig Williams ?. A real gem. He effectively chose a thread every quarter
> and made it into a printed conversation. Lots of time and effort. It would
> be nice to see that ( or something like that ) again. ( I am working in that
> direction with the archives, or at least trying to :slight_smile: )

Yes, I've seen some of Craig's work and it is terrific [as are your efforts
to make the archives more accessible]...but as you point out, this level of
involvement is beyond the capacity of most of us.

> > I can think of several advantages to having a thread summary procedure <snip>

> Sounds wonderful, who's going to do it?

The proposal was that the person who started the thread would summarize its
_key conclusions_ in a short post [not a review of the whole history of the
thread]. Others could append clarifications/dissents. Since the thread
initiator is seeking information or testing a position, she or he is the
logical party to write the thread synopsis. Why wouldn't that work?

Regards,

Bill
--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
ssaunde@ibm.net

6

[From Bill Curry (991130.1100 EST)]

Marc Abrams (991129.2231)

> [Bill Curry (991129.2135 EST)]

>The proposal was that the person who started the thread would summarize its _key conclusions_
>in a short post [not a review of the whole history of the thread]. Others could append
>clarifications/dissents. Since the thread initiator is seeking information or testing a position,
> she or he is the logical party to write the thread synopsis. Why wouldn't that work?

Again, It sounds wonderful. But let me share some of my archive experiences
and pose some questions;

What do you do when you have a 230 _page_ thread. As we did with Randall
Beers.

You will have expended a lot of effort with no conclusions reached, at least
in a condensed, readily accessible form [but I am sure many delicious points
were scored;-)]. If Randall Beers [I presume he initiated it] was responsible
for stating what he actually got out of the thread it might inform us for one,
of why he no longer participates. We might also have documented some
important PCT insights that we'll just have to randomly stumble onto again
sometime. Maybe injecting more intentionality and group responsibility into a
thread would prevent the extended exercises that take on a rambling, stream of
consciousness quality and end up worlds away from where they started. Or, are
these discourses some deviant form of PCT cognitive dissonance where members
participate just to feel like they are "advancing the Theory" and reaching
"meaningful conclusions", when in fact such an outcome is of little concern?

"Summarizing" even a 10 post thread can be time consuming. Pick a recent
thread ( anyone ) and try it.

Agree, if summarizing means a historic post by post treatment a la Craig
Williams. I meant a terse statement of final positions, conclusions and
important insights--isn't this this what we're after--answers?

What happens when a thread _diverges_. This happens a lot.

This is symptomatic of another set of problems. Often divergence occurs
because of a lack of continuing focus on the original question/position, or a
consequence of pursuing a topic that hasn't been adequately defined at the
outset. Of course some threads justifiably branch from the original question
but the "branchor" should assume responsibility for starting a new thread
using a different and meaningful descriptor. BTW, the initiator of the
original thread would want to insist upon this approach in order to maintain
attention on his/her initial question/position/intention [so let this serve as
a dire warning to all you RTP posters on the "Where Do We Go From Here"
thread :-)]

Or, when one
person will answer multi-people/topics at the same time. Bill does this
religously. _LOTS_ of editing. LOTS of time, and LOTS of work.

I can understand the economy in Bill's case of responding to several people in
one post on the same thread, but multiple-thread responses are clearly
inappropriate from an archival viewpoint .

If someone _wants_ to do it, that would be terrific but I for one would not.
I don't have the desire or time to deal with every thread.

You wouldn't have to write an executive summary of every thread--only those
_you_ initiate.

Enjoy that chilly, cloudy NYC day (Fort Myers being sunny and 76F),

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com

7

from [ Marc Abrams (991130.1143) ]

[From Bill Curry (991130.1100 EST)]

Bill, if people are willing to do it it's a wonderful idea. So far you and I
are the only ones talking about it.

I agree with both you and Bruce Nevin on this. But, ( unfortunatly ) I don't
think it can work. Your asking a lot from an individual. i just don't see it
happenin'. ( Although I'd like to ).

Hey, maybe we can all chip in some money and get a grad student to do it :slight_smile:

Enjoy that chilly, cloudy NYC day (Fort Myers being sunny and 76F),

Kiss my ass :slight_smile: ( My mom is in Palm Beach )

Marc

8

[From Bruce Gregory (991130.1220 EST)]

Marc Abrams (991130.1143)

> [From Bill Curry (991130.1100 EST)]

Bill, if people are willing to do it it's a wonderful idea.
So far you and I
are the only ones talking about it.

I agree with both you and Bruce Nevin on this. But,

unfortunately ) I don't
think it can work. Your asking a lot from an individual. i
just don't see it
happenin'. ( Although I'd like to ).

Hey, maybe we can all chip in some money and get a grad
student to do it :slight_smile:

Someone once described the Supreme Court as consisting of two
sub-groups: The Infallible Five and the Furious Four. Sounds a bit like
CSGnet doesn't it? Maybe we need majority opinions and dissents. Not too
easy to achieve, since most people never post. I guess they are part of
the Silent Majority.

Bruce Gregory

9

[From Bill Curry (991130.1810 EST)]

Samuel Saunders (991130.1330 EST)]

I think the general idea of a summary is a good one. I see problems with
expecting the starter of a thread to do the summary: <snip>

Your points are well taken, Samuel, and I withdraw my suggestion of the
initiator supplying a summary.

Perhaps the best course would be to attempt to establish a custom that
anyone who feels ready to write a summary will post a thread with the key
word SUMMARY in the title and, by doing so, agree to collect all comments
for a reasonable period of time (say 2 weeks), then post the summary with
attached comments. To ease the task of collecting comments, it would help
if cooments were sent directly instead of or in addition to being posted.
As a last thought, someone who sees a set of potntially related questions
might use this mechanism to post a SUMMARY which raises the questions,
without reviewing any answers, and then collect answers to post; this would
reduce the burden on the SUMARYY poster. (Should there be a second round of
comments ? Certainly no more than that.)

These procedures sound quite reasonable. I think this could help to terminate
stalemated debates sooner or clarify the outstanding points.

Regards,

Bill

···

--
William J. Curry, III 941-395.0088
Capticom, Inc. capticom@olsusa.com