Re: [Swarm-Modelling] lifecycle requirements

[Russell Standish]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 03:28:18PM -0800, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Yes there is.  The intimidation is implicit.  Nobody (other than me,
> perhaps) wants to look like an idiot in the eyes of their colleagues.
> So, in order to participate in a conversation, a person _must_ go out
> and learn (either by asking or research) what a term means and how to
> use it _before_ being able to participate in the discussion.  Hence,
> people who use too much jargon are implicitly blocking the input from
> those who may not have mastery over that jargon but still have useful
> things to say.  This is just common sense, it seems.
> 
> That said, those of us who post frequently, are opinionated, type fast,
> etc. can tend to swamp others because we don't give them enough time to
> respond.  So a person is faced with the idea that if they can't respond
> _NOW_, then they may as well not participate at  all.

Yes, well the sheer volume of correspondence has made this difficult.

> 
> You keep saying that.  But, this is not a software engineering exercise.
>  All I want to do is determine whether or not lifecycles are important
> to ABMers.  In order to determine that, we have to talk about a
> lifecycle _requirement_.  There's no software engineering going on, here.

It is not something I've ever come across as a requirement, but I keep
reading this list hoping to understand why it might be important.


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                              
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         address@hidden
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------