Community Tools User Group Meeting Transcript - 2011-04-07

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Rand Linden wrote:

Anyone up to the challenge, or know the

slog.whiz-kids.de folks?

---

Rand,

I finished the first revision of the Chat Log Wikify tool then updated the transcript from the most recent CTUG Meeting. Please have a look and let me know what you think.

Community Tools User Group 2011-04-07

[Dillon Levenque]

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

 

---

Rand Linden wrote:

Anyone up to the challenge, or know the

slog.whiz-kids.de folks?

---

Rand,

I finished the first revision of the Chat Log Wikify tool then updated the transcript from the most recent CTUG Meeting. Please have a look and let me know what you think.

Community Tools User Group 2011-04-07

---

Darrius

 Would it be appropriate to continue the discussion Deltango started regarding inworld vs. fora 'meetings'? Or should that be a new topic?

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Dillon Levenque wrote:

Darrius

 Would it be appropriate to continue the discussion Deltango started regarding inworld vs. fora 'meetings'? Or should that be a new topic?

---

 

I think Deltango has raised some very valid concepts .. worthy of a Topic of their own. Not saying I agree with them but .. I think they need proper "air".

@Deltango - Favor please? Can you grab your post from this thread and use it as the OP in a new Topic? Thank you in advance.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

I think that a forum-based venue for these kinds of discussions is much superior, even while acknowledging some of the drawbacks that Void and Del have raised.

LL, on the other hand, may not be so keen.  It would be much more difficult to control and contain the discussion here than in-world.

ETA:  Just thought I'd better clarify.  I don't mean anything sinister by "control" or "contain" -- just that the conversations here are more likely to branch off in all sorts of directions, and more prone to digressive or spammish contributions.

[Storm Clarence]

I was under the impression that what is discussed in the forum is the 'agenda' of the in-world CTUG meetings.  I thought the 'topics' on the agenda are what is, and should be, open for discussion.  The CTUG agenda is available for all to read and post an agenda item.  Each CTUG agenda item *should* be an OP in this sub-forum: Community Feedback, before it is 'formally' brought to the attention of the Lindens (if Lindens read the forum then the Lindens should know what is coming their way in the meeting; they should be prepared.)  The OP should be debated by those that want to have a voice on any particular agenda item. The people that attend the meeting hold the Lindens accountable for an answer.  

[Deltango Vale]

"Favor please? Can you grab your post from this thread and use it as the OP in a new Topic? Thank you in advance."

--------------------------------------

Sure, I'll try to improve it a bit and maybe set it into a broader context.

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

I was under the impression that what is discussed in the forum is the 'agenda' of the in-world CTUG meetings.  I thought the 'topics' on the agenda are what is, and should be, open for discussion.  The CTUG agenda is available for all to read and post an agenda item.  Each CTUG agenda item *should* be an OP in this sub-forum: Community Feedback, before it is 'formally' brought to the attention of the Lindens (if Lindens read the forum then the Lindens should know what is coming their way in the meeting; they should be prepared.)  The OP should be debated by those that want to have a voice on any particular agenda item. The people that attend the meeting hold the Lindens accountable for an answer.  

---

Yup, exactly my thinking too. And yes .. "hold the Lindens accountable" is exactly the intended goal of the UG Meetings IMO.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Deltango Vale wrote:

Sure, I'll try to improve it a bit and maybe set it into a broader context.

---

Thank you. In case someone gets lost trying to find the new topic, please do post the link to it here too.

 

[Ciaran Laval]

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

I see some missing logic in the list of reasons for an against inworld/infora meetings such as...

infora attendence encourages more casual users to add to the topic, but also contributes to noise on a topic.

larger infora participation (and across a broader time) means more work for the involved lindens to answer questions, both in volume and in time

lack of clear boundaries for time, and inherent lack of focus.

 

that's not an argument against, but it is a start towards a more balanced view.

---

I'd be happier with a bit of both, the inworld meetings can be useful and should be encouraged but there should be room for dialogue from those who can't get to the inworld meetings. There are folk who attend inworld meetings who don't like using the forum for discussion.

 

[Void Singer]

I'm not opposed to the idea, just thought it fair to give some expanded perspective, besides "face to face is cooler"*

[Scylla Rhiadra]

 

---

Storm Clarence wrote:

I was under the impression that what is discussed in the forum is the 'agenda' of the in-world CTUG meetings.  I thought the 'topics' on the agenda are what is, and should be, open for discussion.  The CTUG agenda is available for all to read and post an agenda item.  Each CTUG agenda item *should* be an OP in this sub-forum: Community Feedback, before it is 'formally' brought to the attention of the Lindens (if Lindens read the forum then the Lindens should know what is coming their way in the meeting; they should be prepared.)  The OP should be debated by those that want to have a voice on any particular agenda item. The people that attend the meeting hold the Lindens accountable for an answer.  

---

 

I think one of the problems, Storm, is that none of this has been formalized anywhere.  I was only barely aware of the existence of the CTUG until relatively recently myself.

What Darrius and others are talking about is a more recognized, public, and formalized process, I think.

[Suspiria Finucane]

 

---

Scylla Rhiadra wrote:

 

What Darrius and others are talking about is a more recognized, public, and formalized process, I think

---

I don't think it is meant to be more public. If they delete user names and censor the transcripts, if you don't attend you don't get the whole story.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

Umm .. Suspiria? I neither delete names from the transcript nor censor it.

Did I misunderstand who you meant that for?

[Ossian1488303077]

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Umm .. Suspiria? I neither delete names from the transcript nor censor it.

Did I misunderstand who you meant that for?

---

I think she means that in a previous week some remarks were left out of the official transcript,
not yours.

 

[Venus Petrov]

I think it is not intentional, rather, whatever tool they are using to capture the local chat log is making a funky mess of the paste.  Remarks are there but not attributed in all cases.

[Ossian1488303077]

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

I think it is not intentional, rather, whatever tool they are using to capture the local chat log is making a funky mess of the paste.  Remarks are there but not attributed in all cases.

---

 

Oh! I had thought those were continued from the last speaker.  It's really a head-shaker.  I *do* read the official
one because I'm anxious to see what happened, but reading Darrius' version afterward is a completely
different experience.

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Ossian wrote:

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

Umm .. Suspiria? I neither delete names from the transcript nor censor it.

Did I misunderstand who you meant that for?

---

I think she means that in a previous week some remarks were left out of the

official

transcript,

not yours.

 

---

Ahhh .. okay. (puts away his cannon .. doggone it) Thank you Ossian.

 

[Darrius Gothly]

I have updated the log from last week's CTUG meeting using the new format created by the Wikifier I told Rand I would make. If I could ask a favor from all .. please go take another look at the format and pass any comments / suggestions / gripes along to me.

2011-04-07 Community Tools User Group

[Void Singer]

I have one immediate point of feed back..... if you are going to use displaynames in the transcript, they should be accompanied by username., not just  a link at the top.... personally I'd much rather see just the usernames (which are definitive)

not because it's super problematic in that log, but special characters and impersonation could be an issue for people reading the transcript later (I don't think including the surnames for "Resident" is particularly necessary in that case though)...

personally I also like to have continued coloring (so lindens names AND text would be alt colored)... and I don't know if you parse it, but perhaps alternate colors for specialty legacy account types if they can be detected.

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

I have one immediate point of feed back..... if you are going to use displaynames in the transcript, they should be accompanied by username., not just  a link at the top.... personally I'd much rather see just the usernames (which are definitive)

---

 

I already have an option to display or hide user names. The default is off but I can change that easily. When you say you want them included though .. do you want them in the transcript portion or just in the attendee list? (I flip flopped back and forth on that so I'm wanting input.)

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

personally I also like to have continued coloring (so lindens names AND text would be alt colored)... and I don't know if you parse it, but perhaps alternate colors for specialty legacy account types if they can be detected.

---

 

I can continue the coloring on Linden names across the transcript (chat) text too .. no problem.

I think I understand what you mean by "Legacy" account types (accounts that have names pre-resident type, right?) But what are "specialty legacy accounts"?

[Colt Habana]

 

---

Venus Petrov wrote:

I think it is not intentional, rather, whatever tool they are using to capture the local chat log is making a funky mess of the paste.  Remarks are there but not attributed in all cases.

---

Some of the remarks as well as names have gone missing too from an earlier transcript.

 

[Void Singer]

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

I already have an option to display or hide user names. The default is off but I can change that easily. When you say you want them included though .. do you want them in the transcript portion or just in the attendee list? (I flip flopped back and forth on that so I'm wanting input.)

---

including them inline would probably be distracting from the content. probably both listed in the attendees list, and maybe a switchable page view (via css?) to get user names or display names (otherwise just usernames). in addition to my previous reasoning, I'm thinking that for stability and continuity, records using usernames are preferable for the default chat text.

 

 

---

Darrius Gothly wrote:

I think I understand what you mean by "Legacy" account types (accounts that have names pre-resident type, right?) But what are "specialty legacy accounts"?

---

 

actually I was refering to account types like "Ex Ordium", and "Charter Member"... and any others that have special flags (I think lifetime and beta are also available). the difference between pre and post last name availability is obvious in a user name, so that wasn't intended. (besides you can still register a few last names, even now)

[Darrius Gothly]

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

including them inline would probably be distracting from the content. probably both listed in the attendees list, and maybe a switchable page view (via css?) to get user names or display names (otherwise just usernames). in addition to my previous reasoning, I'm thinking that for stability and continuity, records using usernames are preferable for the default chat text.

---

 

Ah .. gotcha. I can put user names (user.name) in the attendee's list, but since I'm generating output specifically for the Wiki, any fancy stuff is kinda outta my control. (The same reason I can't open the User's my.secondlife.com page in a new window. grrrrr...) I'll make some quick changes and post an updated version of the prior transcript for review.

 

---

Void Singer wrote:

actually I was refering to account types like "Ex Ordium", and "Charter Member"... and any others that have special flags (I think lifetime and beta are also available). the difference between pre and post last name availability is obvious in a user name, so that wasn't intended. (besides you can still register a few last names, even now)

---

I'm not doing any scraping of the user's profile ... at present. It's a possibility, but wouldn't it make more sense to just let folks go check out their web profile instead?

 

[Darrius Gothly]

Test version is HERE

[Void Singer]

I may have shot myself in the foot on definitions.... my intention was both in the header, and legacy names in the text.

reasoning example:
this week user John.Doe has a displayname of "John Doe Lives!", next week, they show up with a display name of "Kïllêr Klðwñ £rðm Öµ†êr §þå¢ê" (which may have trouble being parsed on a web page) or "Darrius Gothly"(problematic impersonation).... if I'm reading the transcripts, the only way I know that John Doe is the same person is to reference the attendees list.... and if more than one person has the same display name, there's absolutely no way to tell who is who... so it makes much more sense to record them as "John Doe" in the chat register.

ETA:
I figured you were parsing the profile page to get either the display name or the username for the link, my bad. the "charter" etc stuff was really just gravy if you were already parsing those pages.