Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 12:47:41 05/30/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 30, 2000 at 10:04:43, Pete Galati wrote: >On May 30, 2000 at 01:16:18, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>On May 29, 2000 at 18:12:30, Don Beal wrote: >> >>>On May 29, 2000 at 17:32:00, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>>On May 29, 2000 at 13:51:40, Don Beal wrote: >>>>>[snip] >>>>>Now some of my opinions. >>>>> >>>>>Like other readers of the CCC forum we choose whether to, when, and >>>>>when not, to read CCC messages. I personally think it is not >>>>>reasonable of CCC members to expect that any message about the ICCA >>>>>will receive an ICCA response the same day. So complaints about >>>>>"the ICCA should be here" I regard as mischief-making. I AM here. >>>>>What's your grudge? >>>> >>>>I think you missed the point. Nobody (that I noticed) was complaining >>>>about the time it takes for the ICCA to reply to a post here. The >>>>complaint is that the ICCA does not have a "presence" here. >>> >>>Yes, it is reasonable to ask for more ICCA "presence" here. >>> >>>I think it would be helpful to distinguish between the ICCA board >>>and the ICCA. The ICCA is _all_ its members as well as the board >>>members. I'd like to encourage ICCA members to discuss ICCA matters >>>here. It doesn't have to be board members doing all the posting. >>>ICCA members could use this forum to discuss how to enhance the ICCA. >>>(BUT - please don't post "wish lists" that "someone else" "could do". >>>Much more welcome would be ideas combined with an offer that the poster >>>would do them!!) >>> >>>>I don't recall ever seeing any CCC posts made by Levy, Newborn, or vd Herik. >>> >>>They don't subscribe to this forum. That's their choice. Yes, >>>contributions here from them would be beneficial, but they do other >>>things of benefit to the CC community with their time. >>> >>>>To reiterate Bruce's point, the bare minimum of activity would be to announce >>>>ICCA events here. Every time an event nears, there is a huge mass of confusion >>>>about the event on CCC. This is unnecessary confusion if the ICCA is here (as >>>>you claim). >>> >>>Unfortunately that often reflects lack of positive information to post. >>>For example I'm still waiting to hear if we've got the sponsorship for >>>the WMCCC planned for August 2000 at the planned Computer Olympiad. >>>Sometimes we don't hear until the last minute. The sponsorship for the >>>WCCC last year was still being negotiated months after the "deadline" we >>>had initially set, and after the date we should have been notifying >>>participants about the arrangements. >>> >>>Don Beal. >> >>Don, >> >>Perhaps you can search (ask) for someone who is qualified and is willing >>to improve and maintain the ICCA web-site. For instance I do believe the >>least the ICCA should have is its own message board. >> >>Keep up the good work. >> >>Ed > >I aggree, a message board would be a great idea for ICCA, it would go a _long_ >way towards promoting it. I'm betting that it's helped Steven's business a >great deal by hosting this CCC forum. The ICCA could do several initiatives such as "topic of the month" where programmers can discuss (for instance) a specific search technique (or whatever) into deepest detail. At several times I thought about the possibility to open such a board myself (the Programmers Board) but I absolutely have no time to do all the work involved to introduce a new topic each month and to make an overview of the most important points of the topic thereafter. To setup the board itself is a 5 minutes job as we use the UBB software which automatically allows multiple forums. But it should be a lot better the ICCA does such a job as it fits them much better. Ed >Pete
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.