Timeline for Shall we have tea?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:27 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Partly trying to fulfill some earlier committments. I am willing to attempt it here because I have a sense of who is here to read it. I might try it on tea or a new forum, but I will talk to an empty room only so long. As commented elsewhere, it is important to know who (or at least how many) is listening. Gerhard "Running Short On Signatures Today" Paseman, 2014.12.02 | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:23 | comment | added | user9072 | Okay @GerhardPaseman, what prevented you from starting the discussions here or on the current tea? | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:22 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | @quid: in brief: additional promotion efforts, outreach to mathematics in developing countries, considering an adjunct to WDML, and most importantly what to do to grow the current community. Also, some previous discussions on archiving and content need to be continued. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 17:14 | comment | added | user9072 | @GerhardPaseman in my answer I propose a very straightforward way to notify users of new posts that I assume will be somewhat rare. As I said in a comment that I then deleted as it was somewhat redundant with JDH's answer the lack of discussion is in my mind not mainly due to the format. Anyway, there is nothing much to be said against the board using a more advanced software. However, if noone has anything to discuss it will be a bit pointless. What would you like to discuss? (I am sorry to say but most of the more recent general debates did not really lead anywhere AFAICT.) | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 16:58 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | I also think the discussions could continue on Vanilla. However, Scott's point is that the tie between the Vanilla board and the MathOverflow forum is weak, and there would be more of a challenge to notify users of changes on Vanilla, and less so (or differently and in a better way) using Discourse. However, I could see a determined group using Vanilla and updating members of this forum. Gerhard "Has Feet In Both Camps" Paseman, 2014.12.02 | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 16:51 | comment | added | user9072 | @TheMaskedAvenger according to OP 'we used to have in depth conversations discussing the community and future of mathoverflow, which are now significantly obstructed by the poor software choice at meta.' These discussions happened on that very Vanilla board. I do not see any reason why they could not continue there. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 16:30 | comment | added | The Masked Avenger | @quid, let me guess: Discourse has not just a discussion thread feature and a search feature and a login feature like Vanilla, but also has one or two features in common with this meta that support such discussions. Hopefully Scott will make those features clear. | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 13:56 | comment | added | user9072 | I deleted an earlier more playful comment (mainly as a half-sentence of mine was based on a misunderstanding), but I would still like to record the specific question: why exactly do you feel that you cannot post these thing now, neither here nor on the old meta, but believe that then on the third meta it will be good? | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 13:19 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | This is a bit misleading since very little happens on the so-called "private moderator mailing list". | |
| Dec 2, 2014 at 2:38 | history | answered | Kim MorrisonMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |