Today six or seven of us met at CRCC for a nice discussion. I won’t try to review it all here, but I’ll list a few items of note:
- We talked about putting together a demo of lots of the FARG projects and having some sort of gathering (such as an “open house” later this year, say at the start of the fall semester, to celebrate CRCC’s 20th anniversary.
- We discussed this blog – everyone seems to agree that this multi-author WordPress system will work fine. If you’re a core FARGonaut who wants to write posts and for some reason hasn’t been added yet, let me know.
- I suggested that several of us could draft a paper comparing and contrasting the various FARG projects, as a way of putting new projects into context as well as getting a handle on what features comprise the “core” of the “FARGitecture”. There seemed to be support for this idea, and I’d certainly enjoy helping put together such a report with a couple others in our group.
- A large portion of the discussion was on this notion of a “core” – we’ve had plenty of this discussion on the mailing list recently so I won’t repeat it here. Ab suggested listing a bunch of simple domains as “use cases” to help define the common elements. The goal is to write what Matt called the FARG RAGF, or Really Awesome General Framework. Whether or not the RAGF is a good idea is open to plenty of debate, but the idea is, for better or worse, to write a reusable library to facilitate implementation of novel FARG models.
- We created a new private Google Group to provide archived FARG discussion as a complement to our local CRCC email list. I brainstormed a list of some features for the RAGF, and I’ll post it there (because it was suggested that such technical discussion may not belong in this blog).
Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions about our new online FARG features. I’m looking forward to seeing what we start writing here! Just as a word of advice, please remember that this is a public blog and we should all keep things professional and representative of the general mission of CRCC. More speculative discussion (like debate about a hypothetical RAGF) should probably be left to the discussion group.