Conference 7.286::digital

    Actually, I (personally) look for this conference for the
    Digital way of working, I don't think discussions about
    the closing of one conference really belong here.  Any
    "explanations" belong in whatever is left at the old
    conference location, like what was left in topic 1.
    Also, this node got swamped around note 111 time, 
    I would say write locking "the rumor(s)" type of discussions
    and the "I like it/I didn't" helped here.
    There are several conferences dealing with NOTES in Digital,
    but I don't see that type of topic dealing with "WORKING"
    in Digital.  I believe from the network point of view
    and HUMAN:: resouce concerns, it was a great idea.
    _bill

    My opinion is that discussions surrounding the
    closing (or subsequent opening) of a conference
    should be within THAT conference, not another like
    HUMAN::DIGITAL. The re-onening of SOAPBOX has
    been announced in the EASYNET_CONFERENCES file....
    no need to re-interate the point in other conferences.
    
    pat
    

    RE: .2
    
    How do you discuss the closing of a conference in THAT conference,
    if the conference is indeed closed?
    
    Just curius?
    
    
    RE:. 0
    
    
    I think that these kinds of discussions do belong here, and hence
    my note to the moderators about reopening the topic in question.
    The Digital way of working is not limited to Digital policies, but
    also the way that people interact here.  There are many topics in
    this conference which would fall outside of the defininitions in
    .1 which were let go, while the topic started by the author of .0
    was propmptly set /nowrite. 
    
    
    -bill

    The note that was set /NOWRITE was done so by one moderator. We
    have several. I did not agree with that decision but did not
    want to unilaterally over-ride with out knowing all the facts.
    As a general rule the moderators of this, and I assume most,
    conference feel free to act in a timely fashion when they feel
    it is required. On borderline cases we consult first. On other
    case we consult after. The latter is what happened in the case
    of the SOAPBOX topic. It is the result of those consultations
    that the topic was re-opened. I don't see it as a big deal but
    I understand that others may disagree.
    
    Setting that topic nowrite was a judgment call by one person.
    It was not a policy statement by the body of moderators and as
    such discussion of the action is probably best taken up off-line.
    
    I do not believe that this conference is particularly well suited
    to the discussion of an individual conference. Rules regarding
    conferences in general probably fit better. Perhaps there should
    be a conference to discuss Notes issues (politics, policy, specific
    conferences, etc.). I am not at liberty to host it but if someone
    else can (say on their workstation) I am sure that it would receive
    good support. I believe that there are a lot of issues regarding
    notes usage and policy that would fill a conference. That conference
    could be considered a companion conference to the MODERATORS
    conference.
    
    			Alfred

I think the moderator used good judgement in write-locking that note, and
that good judgement is better that "these are the rule about what can/cannot
be discussed here."

The last thing I want to read in this conference is all the dribble from
Soapbox'ers!

                                  8-)

    re:  .5     
    
    	I agree!
    
    re:  .3
    
    	OBVIOUSLY, one cannot access a closed conference.....
        my point was that all the discussions surrounding
        the REASONS WHY THE CONFERENCE CLOSED IN THE FIRST
        PLACE  should be addressed in the *new* conference.
        Those kind of rantings (who did what, why, etc)
        should not be circulating in other conferences.
        If I wanted to know the ins and outs of SOAPBOX,
        I would add it to my file (the *new* SOAPBOX, I mean).
    
        

    Re: .6
    
>    	OBVIOUSLY, one cannot access a closed conference.....
>        my point was that all the discussions surrounding
>        the REASONS WHY THE CONFERENCE CLOSED IN THE FIRST
>        PLACE  should be addressed in the *new* conference.

    I think the point was that the new conference had not been announced
    and was therefore not available when the note was set nowrite.  In 
    my opinion, write locking *after* the new conference had become 
    available (with a pointer to it) would have been more appropriate.

    -  David

   Re: .2 and .6.                                                

   The chronological order of events is important to understand here.  
   At the time note 549 was closed there was no SOAPBOX, old or new.  
   At the time there was only a single base note in 1.0 of the write 
   locked SOAPBOX_1988 and a copy of the in note 549.2.  It stated 
   that "SOAPBOX_1988 is closed and will not return", period.  This 
   left no known forum to discus the closing!  It was later pointed 
   out that the subject was being discussed in WOMAN_NOTES and the 
   MODERATOR conferences.  But there was no pointer to these conferences 
   at the time the note was closed (besides MODERATORS is a members 
   only conference).  The DIGITAL conference has historically been 
   to open forum for discussing suddenly closed conferences.  If the 
   "NEW SOAPBOX" had existed and there was a polite pointer to this 
   conference I'm sure the topic would have moved to that as it did 
   anyway.  

   It seems to me because of the type of conference SOAPBOX was that 
   and the 'type of people' it may draw in a discussion, that is was okay to 
   suppress a topic concerning it.  I strongly disagree.  The DIGITAL 
   conference is for all Digital noters, including the 'types' that 
   participate in the SOAPBOX conference.  I'm not condemning or condoning 
   the closing of SOAPBOX.  I am however trying to defend the right 
   to discuss these issues in an open forum.  That to me is what the 
   DIGITAL note file is all about.  

   If an alternative forum existed I wouldn't have gotten all steamed up 
   about this!  And if this isn't the right place I agree with .4 that 
   one should be created.

   /Bob

        Although MODERATORS is a "members only" conference, because
        it addresses issues that may be of interest to many people,
        membership is available to essentially anyone who wishes to
        apply (via MAIL to ATSE::CASPAR, as explained in the topic
        in TLE::EASYNET_CONFERENCES that announced it).
        
        RE: How to discuss the closing of a conference once it no longer
        exists:  If you feel the burning need, and you can't find any
        existing conference that's willing to host the discussion, you
        could always create a conference to carry out the discussion. You
        might need to do a little work (like make sure your system manager
        has the NOTES server installed, and doesn't object to the incoming
        network links and disk accesses) to get this going, but it can be
        done.  For example, one option for those who wanted to discuss the
        closing of SOAPBOX_1988 (once it became clear that a discussion
        might not be welcome here) would have been to create a special
        SOAPBOX_1988_CLOSING conference. 
        
        I personally think that a discussion of the issues around the
        closing could be useful, PROVIDED that the people who made the
        decision participated.  HOWEVER, if they didn't, then all it would
        be is rumor and speculation.  While such things may be accepted in
        SOAPBOX, they really aren't too welcome here. 
        
        Tom
        another co-moderator

    Re: .9
    
    That's ATSE::KASPER (Beverly Kasper) for requests to join MODERATORS.
    
    				Steve

.9> Although MODERATORS is a "members only" conference, because it addresses
.9> issues that may be of interest to many people, membership is available to
.9> essentially anyone who wishes to apply.

    Since the conference has been brought up here, I'd like to explain its
    purpose.  MODERATORS is intended primarily as a place where moderators
    can get answers to questions about technical details of moderating, and
    where we can draw on each others' experience to make our own conferences
    better. Anyone interested in moderator issues is welcome; there are a
    number of non-moderators who are members.  It is restricted to help keep
    things focused, not to create a "star chamber".

    The members of MODERATORS are in no way an authoritative body; so
    it really isn't the place to complain about specific incidents.

    Beverly

re: < Note 552.5 by MISFIT::DEEP >

>The last thing I want to read in this conference is all the dribble from
>Soapbox'ers!

You're as bad as Ted Kennedy (a.k.a. "Fat Boy") who when appearing, via phone,
on the Jerry Williams radio show; repeatedly said "dribble" when he meant to 
say "drivel".

:^)

BTW, some of the soapbox isn't too bad.

    Perhaps "dribble" was intended, figuratively meaning "slobber" or
    "drool." My dictionary gives those meanings for "dribble." 

Re .13:

	He almost certainly meant "drivel" even if he said "dribble".

(1)drib.ble vb drib.bled; drib.bling
	1: to fall or flow in drops : TRICKLE
	2: DROOL
	3: to propel by successive slight taps or bounces
(2)dribble n
	1: a small trickling stream or flow
	2: a drizzling shower
	3: the dribbling of a ball or puck
(1)driv.el vb -eled or elled; -el.ling or '-el.ling
	1: DROOL, SLAVER
>>>	2: to talk or utter stupidly, carelessly, or in an infantile way
	- driveler n
(2)drivel n
>>>	: NONSENSE

    1. You can continue to use your dictionary and I can continue to use
    mine (American Heritage).
    
    2. A literary reference. Many years ago I read some humorous poetry
    about little people dancing in and out among some mushrooms. I can't
    remember the author, but I did hear Bea Lilly recite it on Johnny Carson
    one night. It ends using the word "drool" where you would prefer
    "drivel" (except for the rhyme of course). 
    
	"It gave me sharp and shooting pains to listen to such drool,
    	So I lifted up my foot and squashed the G** d*** little fool."

    3. It would be better to ask the person what he intended rather than to
    guess and then assert he should have done something else.
    
    4. I actually prefer the word "dribble" in the use quoted a couple
    of notes ago. It gives the picture of worthless words dripping
    from the mouth, far more graphic than merely using "drivel."

        Please discuss "dribble" vs "drivel" in VISA::JOYOFLEX.
        
        To get this discussion back on track, here's a quote from
        the base note (.0):
        
>  I don't want a 'us vs moderator' topic here.  I just like to know what 
>  others think this DIGITAL conference purposes is and what are and are not 
>  appropriate subjects.
        
Jim Stratton
        

And what is the un-initiated observer meant to make of the word

				JOYOFLEX?

        The "title" of the JOYOFLEX conference is "Joy Of Lexical
        Discourse".  I think the purpose of the conference (last time
        I looked, which isn't recently) is to talk about words -
        origins, meanings, and so on.  I seem to recall a fair amount
        of humor there, as well. 
        
Jim Stratton