Topicality discussion - summary

[Richard Heathfield]

The "Should we broaden the topicality of this group?" thread has been going
for well over four days, so it's time to summarise.

To do this, firstly I'll turn off my killfile for a while.

Okay, now I'm going to attempt to ASCIIartise people's expressed opinions
as if the factions I presented in the OP of that thread formed a
continuous scale, with Neopuritans to the left and Anarchists to the
right. My categories were intended to be upward-compatible, such that an
acceptance of topics covered by, say, M, would also indicate an acceptance
of topics covered by C, P, and N.

Nevertheless, some people expressed more than one preference. These are
indicated by more than one asterisk in the chart. A blank entry means that
someone participated relevantly in the thread, but didn't express a
preference, considering the thread pointless or misguided or something
like that. (If someone did discuss their preferences but didn't
specifically indicate at least one category, I've done my best to map
their preference accurately into the category structure.)

In preparing this summary, I recognise that the categories are artificial,
and that at least one respondent described the whole discussion as a
"false dichotomy". There is no perfect way to do this. I'm doing the best
I can.

That said, here's the chart (fixed pitch font advised). The names are in
the order that my newsreader presents them to me in a threaded view in
which the poster presented a relevant view (rather than a metadiscussion)
- this order does not appear to be particularly significant AFAICT. I have
appended my own view to the end of the list:

N P C M X L A
Name +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
santosh | * | * | * | | | | |
Spiros | | | | | | | |
Joachim Schmitz | | * | * | | | | |
Justin Spahr-Summers | | | * | | | | |
Stephen Sprunk | | | * | | | | |
Flash Gordon | | * | * | | | | |
John Smith | | | | | | | |
Peter J. Holzer | | | * | | * | | |
pemo | * | * | * | * | | | |
Eric Sosman | | | | | | | |
Mark McIntyre | | | * | | | | |
Malcolm McLean | | | * | | | | |
Shadowman | | | * | | | | |
Alan Curry | | | | | | | |
Keith Thompson | | | * | | | | |
Ian Collins | | | * | | * | | |
Martien verbruggen | | | * | | | | |
Jack Klein | | * | * | * | * | | |
Tor Rustad | | | | | | | |
Army1987 | | | * | | | | |
Chris Hills | | | | * | | | |
Richard [Riley] | | | | * | | | |
Kenneth Brody | | | * | | | | |
Phillip Potter | | | * | | | | |
Chris Torek | | | * | | | | |
Jean-Marc Bourguet | | | | | | | |
Al Balmer | | | * | | | | |
Charlton Wilbur | | | * | | | | |
Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood | | * | * | | | | |
Old Wolf | * | * | * | | | | |
Richard Heathfield | * | * | * | * | | | |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Column totals | 4 | 8 |23 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Column totals where | | | | | | | |
ONLY THE MOST LIBERAL | 0 | 0 |18 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
of several choices is | | | | | | | |
counted +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
72% 16% 12%

This discussion provided a couple of surprises (at least to me), one of
which was the absence of any classifiable comment by some of those who,
according to my recollection, had most wanted to extend the topicality
view of the group. (Well, I guess there's no helping some people.)

Another surprise was that my own view was one of the most liberal in the
group. (I have always taken the view that topicality is what the group
says it is, rather than what I personally would like it to be. I would
welcome a little relaxing of the group's topicality rules, but of course
the big question is where to draw the line.)

Anyway, despite my own feelings on the matter, it does seem that an
overwhelming majority of the group wants to keep topicality pretty much
what it is now - K&R through C99, TCs, and future standards, plus
occasional forays into implementation-specific details for the sake of
illustration.

In case there are any sensible followups to this discussion from people
I've modded down, I'll leave the filter off for a little while longer.

 

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Anyway, despite my own feelings on the matter, it does seem that an
overwhelming majority of the group wants to keep topicality pretty much
what it is now - K&R through C99, TCs, and future standards, plus
occasional forays into implementation-specific details for the sake of
illustration.

The Valar have spoken (And thank you for summarizing what sounds
like a lengthy discussion.)

 

[Malcolm McLean]

This discussion provided a couple of surprises (at least to me), one of
which was the absence of any classifiable comment by some of those who,
according to my recollection, had most wanted to extend the topicality
view of the group. (Well, I guess there's no helping some people.)

As Charlton Wilbur said, it is more a dispute about what is rude than about
topicality.
You shouldn't be surprised that those in the opposing camp see subscribing
to your categories as playing your game, and thus reject them. Personally,
as I said, C or Conservative describes me fairly well, although with the
proviso that the quantity as well as the subject determines what is topical.
If in a talk on biochemistry I couldn't mention Atilla the Hun it would make
for a very dry, boring talk. However there does come a point at which it is
a talk on German history rather on biochemistry.

Anyway, despite my own feelings on the matter, it does seem that an
overwhelming majority of the group wants to keep topicality pretty much
what it is now - K&R through C99, TCs, and future standards, plus
occasional forays into implementation-specific details for the sake of
illustration.

There seems to be a very clear majority for option C, even if we allow for
anti-pedants being really Ms but not playing the game.