The ALU CLiki site is being invaded by spam. See:
http://alu.cliki.net/Recent%20Changes
From the latest junk at http://alu.cliki.net/LispChicago :
Please do not delete,I send this message only one time,in order to
introduce some japan website.IF you delete,I will publish every
day
I am from JAPAN,I want to introduce some very good JAPAN sites to
you ,
so you can find something about JAPAN cluture,people.
Maybe the link of the ALU CLiki site is being widely distributed among
spammers. And no, I unfortunately don't have a solution.
Paolo
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> The ALU CLiki site is being invaded by spam. See:
> http://alu.cliki.net/Recent%20Changes
>
> Maybe the link of the ALU CLiki site is being widely distributed
> among spammers. And no, I unfortunately don't have a solution.
Well, there is one "person" responsible for the ALU wiki's well being,
and that's the ALU. Normal Cliki seems to be healthy. Therefore the
only solution I can think of is a neutral community wiki hosted by
someone who cares about it.
MfG,
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Well, there is one "person" responsible for the ALU wiki's well being,
> and that's the ALU. Normal Cliki seems to be healthy. Therefore the
> only solution I can think of is a neutral community wiki hosted by
> someone who cares about it.
Who is running the ALU cliki anyway? The contact link (·········@alu.org)
doesn't appear to work.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Who is running the ALU cliki anyway?
I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
money in it either.
But I'm sure we can change this situation by offering the right
amount of money to either Daniel, the ALU or some other person or
organization with the technical know-how and affinity with the
Lisp community.
Arthur
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
>> Who is running the ALU cliki anyway?
>
> I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
> As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
> anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
> money in it either.
>
> But I'm sure we can change this situation by offering the right
> amount of money to either Daniel, the ALU or some other person or
> organization with the technical know-how and affinity with the
> Lisp community.
I'd be willing to maintain it.
--jon
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
> As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
> anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> money in it either.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Says who?
Carl Shapiro wrote:
>> I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
>> As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
>> anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> money in it either.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Says who?
Just my impression (that's why I said "seems"). I'd love to be corrected.
Arthur
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Just my impression (that's why I said "seems"). I'd love to be corrected.
Rather than publicly speculate on the disposition of the ALU, why not
ask the ALU directly? As you are a member of the ALU Extended Board,
I am sure you know where to enquire.
Carl Shapiro wrote:
�
> Rather than publicly speculate on the disposition of the ALU, why not ask the ALU directly?
My biggest problem with the ALU is its tendency to hide information instead of
spreading it.
This thread is a good illustration: after speculating on Daniel Barlow's and the
ALU's willingness to invest time or money in the ALU Wiki, I get a reply from Daniel
and a reply from the ALU's vice president (that's you, right?). Daniel is kind
enough to give a detailed explanation of the history of the ALU wiki and of his
own motivation; he also offers help to anyone who wants to maintain the wiki and
he offers to fix the most urgent problem.
The only reply I get from the Vice President of the ALU is a reproach for speculating
in public. I would have hoped for something more constructive.
Arthur
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: ALU CLiki invaded by spam
Date:
Message-ID: <41xflcz4u.fsf@franz.com>
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Carl Shapiro wrote:
> �
> > Rather than publicly speculate on the disposition of the ALU, why not ask the ALU directly?
>
> My biggest problem with the ALU is its tendency to hide information instead of
> spreading it.
As an ALU board member, I find this statement troubling. What spawns
the view that the ALU is hiding information?
> This thread is a good illustration: after speculating on Daniel Barlow's and the
> ALU's willingness to invest time or money in the ALU Wiki, I get a reply from Daniel
> and a reply from the ALU's vice president (that's you, right?). Daniel is kind
> enough to give a detailed explanation of the history of the ALU wiki and of his
> own motivation; he also offers help to anyone who wants to maintain the wiki and
> he offers to fix the most urgent problem.
>
> The only reply I get from the Vice President of the ALU is a reproach for speculating
> in public. I would have hoped for something more constructive.
I also took your original statement (especially the part to which Carl
responded):
! Carl Shapiro wrote:
! > Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
!
! > I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
! > As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
! > anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
! > money in it either.
! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
!
! Says who?
as a mild slam. After now reading it again, I can see that it might
not have been meant that way, although this current message I can't
read in any way other than in a negative light. Carl has been working
very hard on the ALU board, spending a _lot_ of time on things like
web resources and our next ILC conference. So I can understand why
he also read your original statement as a negative and took exception
to the part which might have been taken as a statement about the ALU's
intentions and motivations.
I assure you that the ALU's motivations are good. We don't/can't spend
much money on much right now, because there is not much money to spend.
We are trying to bootstrap our website, the ALU membership concept, and
an ILC at the same time, and it is indeed hard to do without money.
We try to make up for that lack with a larger amount of time spent
on those things that we have determined are needed for those goals.
Any lack of information toward the larger ALU "extended-board", or
toward the Lisp commiunity in general, is not due to hiding anything,
but rather simply a lack of enough enough resources to make available
what information is available.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig wrote:
> I also took your original statement (especially the part to which
> Carl responded):
>
> ! Carl Shapiro wrote:
> ! > Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> !
> ! > I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
> ! > As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
> ! > anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
> ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ! > money in it either.
> ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> !
> ! Says who?
>
> as a mild slam. After now reading it again, I can see that it might
> not have been meant that way, although this current message I can't
> read in any way other than in a negative light.
Arthur's comment is not a slam of any sort. It was a statement of
public fact.
http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/eurolisp/2004-October/000026.html
Arthur's point stands, that the ALU ends up treating "public
speculation" as hostile; and that I was discouraged from attending an
ALU meeting for nearly the exact same reason (the details which I
promised to keep secret, though there was absolutely nothing surprising
to me said). Why did Dan Barlow not take a similar approach,
criticizing that Arthur only talk to him via email?
> Carl has been working
> very hard on the ALU board, spending a _lot_ of time on things like
> web resources and our next ILC conference. So I can understand why
> he also read your original statement as a negative and took exception
> to the part which might have been taken as a statement about the
> ALU's intentions and motivations.
This was a mistaken reaction. Due to lack of communication. We can fix
this to ensure such problems do not happen again.
I have personally promised to pay money to go through the ALU's
historical minutes, redacted financial statements, etc; and after
running it past ALU board members, publicize it so all Lispers can be
effective in holding such things as conferences.
Any sensitive info can be redacted. I can do this under NDA. We can go
back in time for obsoleted info. We can all be smarter Lispers.
> I assure you that the ALU's motivations are good.
Obviously they are good. No one is saying you're a bunch of evil
people; I've liked all members I've met on a personal level. However,
there are many persistent, systemic myopias which organizations have.
Something about the ALU is highly top-down and sees the Lisp community
as consumer of its services, not a partner. Lispers are not consumers.
To prove your point, will you open up your historical minutes and
statements to me in whatever manner is reasonable? I can pay.
> We don't/can't spend much money on much right now, because there
> is not much money to spend. We are trying to bootstrap our
> website, the ALU membership concept, and an ILC at the same time,
> and it is indeed hard to do without money.
> We try to make up for that lack with a larger amount of time spent
> on those things that we have determined are needed for those goals.
This is all news to us. I can communicate what you are doing.
Please do not turn my above offer down.
> Any lack of information toward the larger ALU "extended-board", or
> toward the Lisp commiunity in general, is not due to hiding anything,
> but rather simply a lack of enough enough resources to make available
> what information is available.
This wild profit grab is the cost of hiding information:
http://openmap.bbn.com/hypermail/clim/0226.html
It is not a hoax; it has been confirmed. The ALU has been corrupted.
Do you know how long it took me to find that?
Organizations are neither good nor bad, just as Lisp is neither good
nor bad.
MfG,
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> I have personally promised to pay money to go through the ALU's
> historical minutes, redacted financial statements, etc; and after
> running it past ALU board members, publicize it so all Lispers can be
> effective in holding such things as conferences.
>
> Any sensitive info can be redacted.
You mean the bit about JonL being the second shooter on the grassy knoll?
kenny
--
Cells? Cello? Celtik?: http://www.common-lisp.net/project/cells/
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Kenny Tilton wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > I have personally promised to pay money to go through the ALU's
> > historical minutes, redacted financial statements, etc; and after
> > running it past ALU board members, publicize it so all Lispers
> > can be effective in holding such things as conferences.
> >
> > Any sensitive info can be redacted.
>
> You mean the bit about JonL being the second shooter on the grassy
> knoll?
The Al Gore thing wasn't weird enough for you? He invented the
internet, you know. Kennedy just didn't have the brains for that.
http://openmap.bbn.com/hypermail/clim/0226.html
http://openmap.bbn.com/hypermail/clim/0227.html
MfG,
Tayssir
Hi Duane,
Thank you for your considerate message (as always),
> Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
>
>> My biggest problem with the ALU is its tendency to hide information instead of
>> spreading it.
>
> As an ALU board member, I find this statement troubling.
Maybe my statement was too extreme. I apologize.
The problem is that it's difficult to distinguish from the outside between an
organisation not giving any information and an organisation actively hiding it.
I hope you can agree with me that the ALU is not doing a good job of spreading
information about itself. I think this is a very serious problem for the ALU's
credibility.
> I also took your original statement (especially the part to which Carl
> responded):
>
> ! Carl Shapiro wrote:
> ! > Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> ! ! > I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
> ! > As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
> ! > anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
> ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ! > money in it either.
> ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ! ! Says who?
>
> as a mild slam.
I did not intend to slam Daniel Barlow and I did not intend to slam the
ALU. I just wanted to explain to Paul Dietz my understanding of the
current situation.
> So I can understand why he also read your original statement as a negative
> and took exception to the part which might have been taken as a statement
> about the ALU's intentions and motivations.
I can understand that as well. Email is a difficult communication medium
and this probably would not have happened if we had known each other
personally.
> I assure you that the ALU's motivations are good.
I have no doubts about that. But I do have doubts about the ALU's
effectiveness in organizing anything except conferences. Let me repeat
that I don't blame anybody for this. But I do wonder if there aren't
more effective ways of getting some things done that I consider necessary
for the Common Lisp community.
Like a decent web site, for example. That's what this discussion was about,
and that's what I was trying to stimulate by saying that I was ready to
pay money for such a site and by asking if other people were interested
in this as well.
Arthur Lemmens
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: ALU CLiki invaded by spam
Date:
Message-ID: <4oeipbaf3.fsf@franz.com>
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Hi Duane,
>
> Thank you for your considerate message (as always),
>
> > Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> >
> >> My biggest problem with the ALU is its tendency to hide information instead of
> >> spreading it.
> >
> > As an ALU board member, I find this statement troubling.
>
> Maybe my statement was too extreme. I apologize.
>
> The problem is that it's difficult to distinguish from the outside between an
> organisation not giving any information and an organisation actively hiding it.
Yes, absolutely.
"Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by
incompetence." - Napoleon Bonaparte
> I hope you can agree with me that the ALU is not doing a good job of spreading
> information about itself. I think this is a very serious problem for the ALU's
> credibility.
Yes, and we're working on it. Note that if we're "hiding" anything
about any particular subject, it is more in the form of embarrasment,
about not being yet able to say anything good about it (how often do
you want to hear from the ALU board "Nope, we don't yet have our act
together yet"?) Note that the only reason I feel free to say this now
is because I actually believe that we are indeed getting our act
together, and will soon start to be able to talk about progress that
is being made.
> > I also took your original statement (especially the part to which Carl
> > responded):
> >
> > ! Carl Shapiro wrote:
> > ! > Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> > ! ! > I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
> > ! > As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
> > ! > anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
> > ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ! > money in it either.
> > ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ! ! Says who?
> >
> > as a mild slam.
>
> I did not intend to slam Daniel Barlow and I did not intend to slam the
> ALU. I just wanted to explain to Paul Dietz my understanding of the
> current situation.
Yes, I believe that.
> > So I can understand why he also read your original statement as a negative
> > and took exception to the part which might have been taken as a statement
> > about the ALU's intentions and motivations.
>
> I can understand that as well. Email is a difficult communication medium
> and this probably would not have happened if we had known each other
> personally.
>
> > I assure you that the ALU's motivations are good.
>
> I have no doubts about that. But I do have doubts about the ALU's
> effectiveness in organizing anything except conferences. Let me repeat
> that I don't blame anybody for this. But I do wonder if there aren't
> more effective ways of getting some things done that I consider necessary
> for the Common Lisp community.
Right. Note that the ALU's primary focus _has_ been primarily in the
organization of conferences. And we are expanding into other areas within
the Lisp community, but it should not be assumed that whatever is in
the Lisp community's best interest automatically falls into the ALU's
mandate. In fact, there are a number of people who have done things in
the name of the ALU which are not sponsored, controlled, or approved by
the ALU board. But I don't think we're yet in a position to reject or
condone such extra-ALU activities, until we know for ourselves what the
ALU wants to be involved with.
I think we're close to ironing some of these things out, and I'm hopeful
that things will look better at least by the end of the year (yeah,
I'm sticking my neck out; take note, other ALU board members :-)
> Like a decent web site, for example. That's what this discussion was about,
> and that's what I was trying to stimulate by saying that I was ready to
> pay money for such a site and by asking if other people were interested
> in this as well.
Yes, and that offer is appreciated. I think, though, that there is already
some movement in this direction, though I don't know precisely where we're
at right now. One thing we're currently looking for is a site that has
some high bandwidth (we are looking at a few good, cheap options) on which
to host lispnik meeting videos, where the streaming bandwidth can be
either handled or governed. And again, there are already people who
have done this on their own, but we on the ALU board need to look at
potential expansion of the idea, including the potential saturation
of bandwith for whatever site these eventually wind up on. It is not an
easy solution, given that we don't own a high-bandwidth connection.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Note that if we're "hiding" anything about any particular subject,
> it is more in the form of embarrasment, about not being yet able to
> say anything good about it (how often do you want to hear from the
> ALU board "Nope, we don't yet have our act together yet"?)
Hiding information out of embarrassment is not a good thing.
If ALU is to be successful and obtain support from the large body
of non-academic Lisp users, it needs to have transparency in it's
operations. That means owning up to mistakes as well as successes.
IETF is going through a crisis at the moment - and no small part
of it revolves around a perceived lack of transparency on the part
of the IAB.
--jon
Jon Boone <········@delamancha.org> writes:
> If ALU is to be successful and obtain support from the large body
> of non-academic Lisp users, it needs to have transparency in it's
> operations. That means owning up to mistakes as well as successes.
The ALUs primary function for the past ten years has been to put on
its semi-annual conference. I think you would have a hard time making
a case that that the ALU is any more or less transparent in its
conference planning efforts than the next organization.
At any rate, despite suggestions to the contrary, there is really
nothing secret about the operations of the ALU. Its by-laws and
articles of incorporation have been published on the website for as
long as there has been an ALU website. Right along side that
information is an e-mail contact address to reach the officers and
board of directors. The names of the officers, board members, and
extended board members are all listed on the website as well.
In summary, there is no reason to believe that there is anything being
concealed about the operations of the ALU. But, if there is something
else you would like to know about the ALU which is not available
on-line, send a message to the board and ask!
(Also, if people are genuinely interested in doing something
productive for the ALU, I would encourage them to contact the board
and make an attractive proposal.)
I intend no disrespect to people who are doing hard work for the ALU,
stressing themselves and possibly missing out on their relationships to
organize things for the Lisp community.
I would like to find some way where I may post publicly, yet not
implicitly disrespect ALU members by doing so.
Carl Shapiro wrote:
> Jon Boone <········@delamancha.org> writes:
> > If ALU is to be successful and obtain support from the large body
> > of non-academic Lisp users, it needs to have transparency in it's
> > operations. That means owning up to mistakes as well as
> > successes.
>
> The ALUs primary function for the past ten years has been to put on
> its semi-annual conference. I think you would have a hard time
> making a case that that the ALU is any more or less transparent in
> its conference planning efforts than the next organization.
The Python Software Foundation is something you might want to look at.
Minutes, resolutions, even their PR firms are on their wiki and other
places.
http://www.python.org/psf/
> At any rate, despite suggestions to the contrary, there is really
> nothing secret about the operations of the ALU.
There is no skullduggery. There is only "something" which results in
information being kept tight. I am sure it is not conscious.
I only want your history and institutional lessons. Not what you are
working on now. The latter is minor to my ends.
> (Also, if people are genuinely interested in doing something
> productive for the ALU, I would encourage them to contact the
> board and make an attractive proposal.)
Sadly, that can not possibly work (and I have tried). It limits the
dialogue to some finite number of people, when ideas are best when they
bounce off various others. The ALU is only one of many useful actors,
but in public discourse it may occasionally be useful to mention (or
hypothesize a plan which involves) the ALU.
Regards,
Tayssir
Carl Shapiro <·············@panix.com> writes:
> The ALUs primary function for the past ten years has been to put on
> its semi-annual conference. I think you would have a hard time
> making a case that that the ALU is any more or less transparent in
> its conference planning efforts than the next organization.
I'm not trying to make a case one way or the other. I'm happy to
take your word for it that ALU is completely transparent. I would
note that my idea of transparency includes providing periodic
updates even if only to say "nothing has changed".
Of course, I have no vested interest one way or the other, as I am
not now, nor have I hever been, a member of the ALU. At this point,
I don't see that changing any time soon since I don't have the time
nor the financing to attend conferences, even on a semi-annual
basis.
> At any rate, despite suggestions to the contrary, there is really
> nothing secret about the operations of the ALU. Its by-laws and
> articles of incorporation have been published on the website for as
> long as there has been an ALU website. Right along side that
> information is an e-mail contact address to reach the officers and
> board of directors. The names of the officers, board members, and
> extended board members are all listed on the website as well.
Again, I have no complaint one way or the other. My prior comment
was in response to a motivation that Duane has suggested as the
basis for what others perceived as a "lack of communication."
> In summary, there is no reason to believe that there is anything
> being concealed about the operations of the ALU. But, if there is
> something else you would like to know about the ALU which is not
> available on-line, send a message to the board and ask!
I'd be happy to send an email and post the results here in a
public forum, but since you're already reading/responding, let me go
ahead and ask if you see the mission of ALU changing at all. If
not, then you can hit 'd' now, as the rest of this posting isn't
gonna be worth your while.
If so, I'd like to know what ways that ALU sees itself appealing
to folks like me: someone who earns $$$ by doing something totally
unrelated to Lisp and only programs in Lisp for personal
entertainment and educational improvement, but who one-day would
like to have a viable means of income related to programming in
Lisp.
Now, it seems silly to me for a commercial entity such as Franz or
Xanalys to put a lot of effort appealing to someone like me, as I am
unlikely to be a prospective customer any time soon. But, as a
non-profit, I might imagine that ALU *would* want to do something to
appeal to me.
I see conferences (which you state is the main goal of ALU) as
appealing primarily to the following constituencies:
1. Commerical Lisp vendors - conferences provide an excellent
opportunity to reach a preferred target audience, both in terms of
marketing and education/outreach.
2. Academic Lisp researchers/developers - academics live by the
rule of publish or perish! Being a forum for the publication of
academic papers increases the likelyhood that a Lisp-related paper
would be acceptable to the program committee.
3. Professional Lisp developers - many companies offer continuing
education as a perq of working there. An ALU conference would be
certainly (apropos ...)!
The problem I see for me is that ALU conferences are of 2nd-order
relevance, considering that my company doesn't use Lisp at all. In
reality, since I'm not primarily paid as a developer but as a
Network Engineer, it's more likely to be viewed as being of
3rd-order relevance, making it extremely difficult to justify as
"work related." Although it's directly related to my personal use,
I have an even greater difficulty in justifying the expense to my
self. :-)
As for ideas as to how to appeal to me, I'd suggest one or more of
the following:
* an ALU discussion list - some folks don't like to use Usenet due
to spam issues, so a private members-only email discussion list with
various Lisp luminaries (both current and historical) participating
would be very attractive. Fill my mind with so much Lisp
information that my head explodes!
* an ALU monthly newsletter in PDF format which includes up-to-date
information related to Lisp, articles related to Lisp programming,
editorials on how Lisp beats the pants off of all other programming
languages, a monthly "shoot-out" between common-lisp/dylan/scheme to
"prove" which one is better, etc. Think of the flame-wars we could
have on the discussion list related to the monthly shoot-out!
* a jobs forum specific to Lisp. Note that the discussion related
to programming video-games in Lisp included reference to the fact
that Naughty Dog had trouble locating additional Lisp programmers.
ALU could take the lead on being *the* place to look for Lisp
programmers - you could even "partner" with Monster.com, to off-load
some of the work.
* Be the world's biggest cheerleaders for Lisp! Put out weekly (or
at least monthly) information to promote the use of Lisp in every
facet of life. Lisp in the bathtub! Lisp in your toothpaste! Lisp
in your sock drawer! Marketing, marketing, marketing. Other
industries do this, why can't the Lisp community?
* Increase my personal enthusiasm for using Lisp. Make me want to
shoot myself rather than program in some other language. Convince
me that I'd rather poke out my own eyes and cut off my tongue rather
than look upon Java or C++ or perl.
A lack of enthusiasm for programming in Lisp is probably the
biggest impediment that I have to getting a job programming in Lisp
- I'm not willing to sell my soul, take a major pay cut and move to
Massachussets or California to get a job programming in Lisp. Maybe
if you got me more excited about it, I would be.
Whatever it takes to get me to become a member of the 3 categories
of folks above would seem to be fair game. After that part is
accomplished, then your conferences would naturally appeal to me.
Now, this is probably a lot of effort for you to put out just to
broaden ALU's appeal to include me. And, I'm pretty weird, so this
probably *wouldn't* work to convince anyone else. I'll shut up now.
--jon
> there is really nothing secret about the operations of the ALU.
Yet this (part of the) thread started when Arthur mentioned that
"Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it anymore and the ALU
doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or money in it either"
and you replied indicating that the latter part of this is not
the case.
If the ALU _is_ ready to invest time and/or money in a
community-driven Web site, then it has omitted to communicate this
readiness to people who might be interested (and apparently also
even to the members of its own extended board).
The ALU is an organization "dedicated to promoting and representing
the international Lisp communities" (quote from www.alu.org front
page). If you can't or won't promote the ALU to the Lisp community
/itself/ (the community that you claim to represent and which is
therefore almost by definition sympathetic to your aims) then I for
one am not getting warm fuzzies about your abilities to promote said
community to the rest of the world.
> if people are genuinely interested in doing something
> productive for the ALU, I would encourage them to contact the board
> and make an attractive proposal
If people are genuinely interested in doing something
productive for the Lisp community, I would encourage them
to get on and JFDI.
-dan
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: ALU CLiki invaded by spam
Date:
Message-ID: <sqwtxd1agf.fsf@cam.ac.uk>
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> (how often do you want to hear from the ALU board "Nope, we don't
> yet have our act together yet"?)
More often than I am currently. (Well, if I were an "ALU member",
anyway -- I hope that ALU members do in fact get such communication
but you seem to be implying that this isn't the case).
Let me expand on that a little. From the perspective of a relative
newcomer to the Lisp community, the ALU does precisely nothing at all
that I'm interested in. I have derived no benefit from it that I can
tell; it has sucked up the time of some people I respect who might
otherwise have spent their time on things that would in fact benefit
me; the various events that have fostered within me a feeling of
community have tended to happen completely independently of the ALU,
so while I can't for the most part blame the ALU as an entity for any
of the good things that I have seen happen in the Lisp community,
neither can I give the ALU much credit.
That is, of course, not to say that the ALU doesn't deserve any
credit; simply that I haven't seen any observable effects from the
ALU's efforts.[*] Not all efforts lead to effects, but they probably
nevertheless deserve to be documented, at least to those who are in
fact members of the association, if only so that those members can
make an informed decision over whether action needs to be taken or no
at the annual meeting, but in a rather more positive sense, so that a
feeling of inclusion rather than exclusions occurs.
In particular, if no communication happens, the natural assumption
that is made by the general membership is that their assistance or
otherwise is irrelevant. Note that this is not the same thing as
assuming that everything is under control, simply that even were they
to offer their services, they would be turned down or unable to help.
The only way that I know of to counter this assumption is to
communicate, and to a point where it feels excessive.
Of course, this may be uncomfortable to those currently in positions
of responsibility within the ALU; there will be those who are unable
or unwilling to act as is needed, and who will not enjoy having this
failing exposed to the unwashed masses (or the ALU membership, of
course, but I gather that this isn't an extremely large body, so
communication may need to happen further afield). Nevertheless, it is
worthwhile because it raises an implicit challenge, which can be
verbalised as "if you think this isn't good enough, and that you can
do better, please go ahead and stand for election".
But I strongly believe that communication, even of negative results,
is more important than you seem to be suggesting in your remark that
I've quoted. If there is value in the ALU as a body (independent of
its current officers) then those who see that value will gravitate
towards it and perform a service; if not, then at least that will be
evident, too, and we can move on. The silence helps nobody.
Christophe
[*] Lisp conferences aside, sort of. I personally am unlikely to
travel to the United States, so unless the "International" part of
the ILC begins to mean what it says in terms of location as well
as of attendees, I'm unlikely to derive any direct benefit from
the ALU's efforts in that direction; the indirect benefits from
having a larger body of literature out there are tangible, of
course.
Christophe Rhodes wrote:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>>(how often do you want to hear from the ALU board "Nope, we don't
>>yet have our act together yet"?)
>
> More often than I am currently. (Well, if I were an "ALU member",
> anyway -- I hope that ALU members do in fact get such communication
> but you seem to be implying that this isn't the case).
>
> Let me expand on that a little. From the perspective of a relative
> newcomer to the Lisp community, the ALU does precisely nothing at all
> that I'm interested in. I have derived no benefit from it that I can
> tell; it has sucked up the time of some people I respect who might
> otherwise have spent their time on things that would in fact benefit
> me; the various events that have fostered within me a feeling of
> community have tended to happen completely independently of the ALU,
> so while I can't for the most part blame the ALU as an entity for any
> of the good things that I have seen happen in the Lisp community,
> neither can I give the ALU much credit.
>
> That is, of course, not to say that the ALU doesn't deserve any
> credit; simply that I haven't seen any observable effects from the
> ALU's efforts.[*] Not all efforts lead to effects, but they probably
> nevertheless deserve to be documented, at least to those who are in
> fact members of the association, if only so that those members can
> make an informed decision over whether action needs to be taken or no
> at the annual meeting, but in a rather more positive sense, so that a
> feeling of inclusion rather than exclusions occurs.
>
> In particular, if no communication happens, the natural assumption
> that is made by the general membership is that their assistance or
> otherwise is irrelevant. Note that this is not the same thing as
> assuming that everything is under control, simply that even were they
> to offer their services, they would be turned down or unable to help.
> The only way that I know of to counter this assumption is to
> communicate, and to a point where it feels excessive.
>
> Of course, this may be uncomfortable to those currently in positions
> of responsibility within the ALU; there will be those who are unable
> or unwilling to act as is needed, and who will not enjoy having this
> failing exposed to the unwashed masses (or the ALU membership, of
> course, but I gather that this isn't an extremely large body, so
> communication may need to happen further afield). Nevertheless, it is
> worthwhile because it raises an implicit challenge, which can be
> verbalised as "if you think this isn't good enough, and that you can
> do better, please go ahead and stand for election".
>
> But I strongly believe that communication, even of negative results,
> is more important than you seem to be suggesting in your remark that
> I've quoted. If there is value in the ALU as a body (independent of
> its current officers) then those who see that value will gravitate
> towards it and perform a service; if not, then at least that will be
> evident, too, and we can move on. The silence helps nobody.
100% agreement. The ALU is currently in a chicken and egg situation: In
order to get members, it needs to offer value, but it can only offer
value when it gets new members, because value is always created by
people. If it were communicated more what the ALU currently lacks, it
would give potential members the possibility to see what they could
provide. People find it satisfactory to create value, so this is always
an opportunity, not an admission of incompetence. And the ALU has a lot
of potential to create high value for the Lisp community because the ALU
is factually recognized by some organizations as a channel to the Lisp
community.
Instead of criticizing people for showing public concern about the ALU,
the ALU board should recognize them as being concerned about the ALU,
and invite them in to improve the situation.
All of those who participate in the current thread are candidates for
becoming members of the ALU extended board.
Pascal
--
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Instead of criticizing people for showing public concern about the
> ALU, the ALU board should recognize them as being concerned about the
> ALU, and invite them in to improve the situation.
>
> All of those who participate in the current thread are candidates for
> becoming members of the ALU extended board.
Arthur is a member of the ALU extended board. Just as you are. Since
most members of the board do not read USENET, why not start a
discussion of this matter with the board directly?
"Carl Shapiro" <·············@panix.com> wrote in message
····················@panix3.panix.com...
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
> > Instead of criticizing people for showing public concern about the
> > ALU, the ALU board should recognize them as being concerned about the
> > ALU, and invite them in to improve the situation.
> >
> > All of those who participate in the current thread are candidates for
> > becoming members of the ALU extended board.
>
> Arthur is a member of the ALU extended board. Just as you are. Since
> most members of the board do not read USENET, why not start a
> discussion of this matter with the board directly?
Or even use comp.org.lisp-users since that's what it was created for.
(public extended-board type discussions).
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
>> (how often do you want to hear from the ALU board "Nope, we don't
>> yet have our act together yet"?)
>
> More often than I am currently. (Well, if I were an "ALU member",
> anyway -- I hope that ALU members do in fact get such communication
> but you seem to be implying that this isn't the case).
(without-blame
"During my one year ALU membership, I don't remember receiving many
communications from the organization, not even an email acknowledging
the receipt of my membership fee. I realize that, at the time, most
of the hard work was being done by Raymond, who was utterly
busy^H^H^H^Hswamped organizing the upcoming ILC.
During that time, however, I happened to be a member of the ALU web
committee, so I was able to get some news anyway.")
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
--
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
> Right. Note that the ALU's primary focus _has_ been primarily in the
> organization of conferences. And we are expanding into other areas within
> the Lisp community, but it should not be assumed that whatever is in
> the Lisp community's best interest automatically falls into the ALU's
> mandate.
Interesting choice of word. From whom does this mandate derive?
-dan
--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: ALU CLiki invaded by spam
Date:
Message-ID: <4zn28bsew.fsf@franz.com>
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> Duane Rettig <·····@franz.com> writes:
>
> > Right. Note that the ALU's primary focus _has_ been primarily in the
> > organization of conferences. And we are expanding into other areas within
> > the Lisp community, but it should not be assumed that whatever is in
> > the Lisp community's best interest automatically falls into the ALU's
> > mandate.
>
> Interesting choice of word. From whom does this mandate derive?
The mandate of any non-profit organization tends to be contained in
its by-laws, articles of incorporation, and mission statement.
Something that serves as a mission statement is contained at
http://www.alu.org/alu/alu-history - that also has links to the other
two documents.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Paul F. Dietz wrote:
>
>> Who is running the ALU cliki anyway?
>
> I think it's on a metacircles.com machine owned by Daniel Barlow.
This is correct, at least as far as administrative responsiblity for
the machine goes.
> As far as I understand, Daniel Barlow doesn't want to maintain it
> anymore and the ALU doesn't seem to be ready to invest time or
> money in it either.
This is broadly correct, although I might strike the word "anymore".
I don't intend to make excuses here, but, very briefly, the history
for anyone interested:
The site at alu.cliki.net was originally created after ILC2002, as a
result of the "what to do with the ALU web site" discussion that
happened there. It was originally intended to be a alu-web-committee
tool which we could use to play with structure and collect content
before putting it on the official alu.org.
Some few months later it became obvious that the ALU site was taking
longer than was really ideal, so alu.cliki.net was repurposed as a
"let's have the Lisp-using public do the hard work for us" installation.
- http://ww.telent.net/diary/2003/2/#3.81747 has my point of view as
written at the time.
- http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=87k79ik8mv.fsf_-_%40noetbook.telent.net
was a "differentiating the ALU from CLiki" c.l.l post made when
the real alu site relaunched later
> But I'm sure we can change this situation by offering the right
> amount of money to either Daniel, the ALU or some other person or
> organization with the technical know-how and affinity with the
> Lisp community.
Odd though this may sound, as far as I'm concerned this is not a
question of money but of interest. "The" CLiki (www.cliki.net, the
original) has a purpose and an audience. The ALU Wiki on the other
hand is supposed to represent a community that encompasses pretty much
everybody associated with any Lisp-like language: or put another way,
it lacks focus. How do you motivate a group like that to agree on
anything more interesting than "air is good, manual allocation is bad,
I like Jello"?
Incidentally, the only technical difference between the two sites is
that www.cliki.net blocks edits from A N Other. Although I spend more
time editing and reading CLiki than I do the ALU wiki, I actually
spend basically no time at all doing "admin-level" things on _either_
- so although it's reasonable to hold me responsible for neglecting it,
approximately the same charge could be levelled at anyone else in the
Lisp community.
I have no idea why the ALU site attracts so much more spam, but I'll
institute the block on A N Other there as well and see if it helps.
If anyone wants to adopt the site and believes that having it under
their own administrative control would make that easier (it probably
would, at least marginally, but it's by no means a requirement)
they're welcome to contact me by email and I'll make the archive
available to them. The CLiki engine is, of course, freely available
software.
-dan
--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"
Hi Daniel,
Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation of the ALU Wiki.
> I don't intend to make excuses here
Are you kidding? You created a great site and you don't need to make
any excuses; on the contrary.
> The ALU Wiki on the other hand is supposed to represent a community that
> encompasses pretty much everybody associated with any Lisp-like language:
> or put another way, it lacks focus.
I agree with you that "any Lisp-like language" is too general. Personally,
I would like to see a site that's dedicated to Common Lisp only.
> I have no idea why the ALU site attracts so much more spam, but I'll
> institute the block on A N Other there as well and see if it helps.
That would be very helpful; thanks a lot.
Arthur
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>> The ALU CLiki site is being invaded by spam. See:
>> http://alu.cliki.net/Recent%20Changes
>>
>> Maybe the link of the ALU CLiki site is being widely distributed
>> among spammers. And no, I unfortunately don't have a solution.
>
> Well, there is one "person" responsible for the ALU wiki's well being,
> and that's the ALU. Normal Cliki seems to be healthy. Therefore the
> only solution I can think of is a neutral community wiki hosted by
> someone who cares about it.
I agree. We (not necessarily the ALU, just the Lisp community at large)
should build a new CLiki, but that takes time and money.
Personally, I'm willing to pay some money for a decent new CLiki site.
If other people are also willing to invest some money or time, they can
add their name to the newcliki page I just made (http://alu.cliki.net/newcliki).
Arthur
Arthur Lemmens <········@xs4all.nl> writes:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
>> Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>>> The ALU CLiki site is being invaded by spam. See:
>>> http://alu.cliki.net/Recent%20Changes
>>>
>>> Maybe the link of the ALU CLiki site is being widely distributed
>>> among spammers. And no, I unfortunately don't have a solution.
>>
>> Well, there is one "person" responsible for the ALU wiki's well being,
>> and that's the ALU. Normal Cliki seems to be healthy. Therefore the
>> only solution I can think of is a neutral community wiki hosted by
>> someone who cares about it.
>
> I agree. We (not necessarily the ALU, just the Lisp community at large)
> should build a new CLiki, but that takes time and money.
What is wrong with the current CLiki (cliki.net)??
> Personally, I'm willing to pay some money for a decent new CLiki
> site.
Hm... Perhaps you are confusing the alu wiki (alu.cliki.net) with
CLiki... A "new CLiki" doesn't make that much sense, simply because
/the/ CLiki works perfectly well, IMO.
The problem here is one of spam avoidance; I'd say some (fairly)
trivial registration would be the correct answer.
Mario S. Mommer wrote:
> > Personally, I'm willing to pay some money for a decent new CLiki
> > site.
>
> Hm... Perhaps you are confusing the alu wiki (alu.cliki.net) with
> CLiki... A "new CLiki" doesn't make that much sense, simply because
> /the/ CLiki works perfectly well, IMO.
>
> The problem here is one of spam avoidance; I'd say some (fairly)
> trivial registration would be the correct answer.
Are Cliki denizens ok with community stuff appearing in RecentChanges?
(Though even if they aren't, it could be simply a namespace issue...)
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:04:18 +0200, Mario S. Mommer <········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What is wrong with the current CLiki (cliki.net)??
It's only for "free software" on "Unix-like systems." That's not all
Common Lisp is about.
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
Mario S. Mommer wrote:
> What is wrong with the current CLiki (cliki.net)??
I don't know if there's anything wrong with cliki.net, but it has a
totally different scope (only 'free' software for Unix-like systems)
than the ALU wiki.
> Hm... Perhaps you are confusing the alu wiki (alu.cliki.net) with
> CLiki...
Yes, sorry, I used the wrong names. But I still think that we need
a spam-free CLiki-like site for the Lisp community at large.
> The problem here is one of spam avoidance; I'd say some (fairly)
> trivial registration would be the correct answer.
My point was that this is not a technical problem, but a time/money
problem. It won't happen until someone gets paid to do this. I'm
only saying that I'm willing to pay some money to whoever will do this
work for us. And I hope I'm not the only one.
Arthur
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> The ALU CLiki site is being invaded by spam.
> Maybe the link of the ALU CLiki site is being widely distributed among
> spammers. And no, I unfortunately don't have a solution.
How about ip-blocking the spammers?
Yes, I know that's a bit extreme, but it's only meant to be a temporary
solution. Beyond that...
A few options:
- Registration required
- Filtering through SpamAssassin
- Disabling 'A N Other'
- Requiring human OCR
- ?
- ?
Any other ideas?