From: Conrad Schneiker Date: 2001-12-02T05:18:57+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:27215] Re: OO AI "Dave Thomas" wrote: > mentifex@scn.org (Arthur T. Murray) writes: > > > The road to supercomputer AI is paved with good inventions; visit > > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/ -- the object-oriented Ruby language. > > etc... > > A general question: should there be any editorial policies for the > RAA, or can anyone post anything to it? Clearly there are limits: if > someone posted something defamatory, or pornographic, it shouldn't be > stored. But how about if someone posts something that's just plain > silly, or that's very bad? Should it stay in the listing? Who decides? These seem to questions of moderator criteria, which in turn depend on (in some sense) "our" long term aims. I prefer to make RAA as "open" and as "friendly" as possible, and to deal with quality or relevance questions one the basis of moderator categorization rather than exclusion. In the mean time, maybe we could have an informal panel of rotating representatives drawn from the pool of generally respected Ruby advocates (drawn from active book and magazine article authors, Ruby conference presenters, popular module developers, and major Ruby developers) that would review complaints and would remove offending entries based on a simple majority. With respect to the case that started this thread, I didn't see any downloadable code on RAA and I didn't see any downloadable code on any of several sourceforge links that I followed. I am not happy about being sent on a wild goose chase after what appears to be almost entirely *vaporware* apart from a (to me) largely unintelligible and pointless demo (which had no *Ruby* code). I prefer that the growing number of Ruby nubies not have the same experience, which I think reflects poorly on Ruby. (And unfortunately, this entry is at the beginning of the RAA, where it gets undue prominence as well.) For these reasons, I would like to see this entry removed from the RAA. Conrad