318 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2020
    1. In Rust, we use the "No New Rationale" rule, which says that the decision to merge (or not merge) an RFC is based only on rationale that was presented and debated in public. This avoids accidents where the community feels blindsided by a decision.
    2. I'd like to go with an RFC-based governance model (similar to Rust, Ember or Swift) that looks something like this: new features go through a public RFC that describes the motivation for the change, a detailed implementation description, a description on how to document or teach the change (for kpm, that would roughly be focused around how it affected the usual workflows), any drawbacks or alternatives, and any open questions that should be addressed before merging. the change is discussed until all of the relevant arguments have been debated and the arguments are starting to become repetitive (they "reach a steady state") the RFC goes into "final comment period", allowing people who weren't paying close attention to every proposal to have a chance to weigh in with new arguments. assuming no new arguments are presented, the RFC is merged by consensus of the core team and the feature is implemented. All changes, regardless of their source, go through this process, giving active community members who aren't on the core team an opportunity to participate directly in the future direction of the project. (both because of proposals they submit and ones from the core team that they contribute to)
    1. Feel free to subscribe to the issue (there's button in the right hand column) but do not comment unless you are adding value to the discussion. "Me too" and "+1" are not valuable, nor are use cases that have already been written in the comments (e.g., we know that you can't put <tr> or <dd> elements with a <div>).
  2. Oct 2020
    1. then

      Yes, I'm selecting this topic seeking perspective. Discussions in an online course is a manner of interacting with peers. Will ponder how I can use this in my paper.

    1. Also, as a reminder to everyone, this thread is soft-locked and I will be marking as spam any comments that don't meet the criteria I described above.
    1. Discussion is not necessary, but could be useful for critiquing a pattern. This would be useful for people who are proposing a pattern to the community or for people who want to gather feedback on an experiment.
    1. Some researchers have referred to this type of learning arrangement as anchored discussion.23 When students “talk” with one another about a shared text through digital annotation, evidence suggests.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.2) !important; }.d-undefined, .lh-undefined { background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5) !important; }3Lauren Zucker, Jeffrey Pomerantz, Maha Bali annotation affords richer conversation as students pay closer attention to the text, establish more proximal connections between their discussion and the source material, and embrace opportunities to elaborate their ideas, clarify, and learn from the viewpoints of their peers.
    1. I am very intrigued by the arguments that are mentioned by Angeline Grimke'. These are perspectives that I have not considered other than the morality aspect situation. I do like the way that she compares America, where we enslave men, women, and children but even in Africa they would be free. Not only free but have many more inalienable rights in such a poor, egregious country, in my opinion of the times anyway. But here in the land of the free they can't control one single facet of their life. And how exactly does a person being born in America, that is as American as George Washington, lose his rights because one man says so and believes that he is subservient in nature. I would not have done well back then. The ignorance that they posses is devastatingly incredible. That total lack of consideration for other people and human life is utterly despicable. To think that the men could not even get it figured out. It was such a long lasting debate that women had to get involved and try to speak some sort of since to these so called men. I know it is a different time but I am unable to fathom treating someone so horribly. I am glad it is a different time!

  3. Sep 2020
    1. ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “having spent a few days looking at ‘debate’ about COVID policy on lay twitter (not the conspiracy stuff, just the ‘we should all be Sweden’ discussions), the single most jarring (and worrying) thing I noticed is that posters seem completely undeterred by self contradiction 1/3” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1308340430170456064

    1. Sometimes answering a single question can be very time consuming (such as setting up a benchmark), but discussions tend to stall out if concerns don't get thoroughly addressed.
    1. Further discussion can take place when this has a PR.

      That's funny that he mentions a PR being a prerequisite for having further discussion, when elsewhere ( ), someone said that instead of talking about the

      So is a specific proposed implementation (how to built it) necessary/useful in order to have a general discussion about a feature proposal? I would say no.

    2. This conversation has been locked as too heated and limited to collaborators.
  4. Aug 2020
    1. New information that would be useful toward the future usage or troubleshooting of GitLab should not be written directly in a forum or other messaging system, but added to a docs MR and then referenced, as described above.
    2. When you encounter new information not available in GitLab’s documentation (for example, when working on a support case or testing a feature), your first step should be to create a merge request (MR) to add this information to the docs. You can then share the MR in order to communicate this information.
    1. BenchmarkDiscussion

      What is a Benchmark Discussion? Why is it capitalized?

    2. Students continue working ondifferentiated learning activities.(Remote only? Hold discussionswith half of the class at a time.)

      Sounds like great use of a fishbowl model.

    1. As a result, I end up quoting multiple people, sometimes quoting several people back-to-back, before even writing my reply. In those instances it feels like I'm not properly citing those individuals. I feel like it might seem I'm not providing new readers appropriate context for a given quote. It might also be implied that separate quotes are from the same person, leading to mis-attribution.
  5. Jul 2020
  6. Jun 2020
    1. I know you acknowledged your response was late and you're just trying to help but please don't resurrect very old threads.

      This is better than creating a duplicate new thread.

      There is no better place to respond to an existing topic than in the existing thread for that topic.

  7. May 2020
  8. featuredcontent.psychonomic.org featuredcontent.psychonomic.org