Followup: Sequences book reading group

post by iarwain1 · 2015-03-01T17:37:57.650Z · score: 6 (7 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 3 comments

It's been about a week since I posted a request for a reading group once the Sequences book comes out. As of this post, 25 people have indicated that they would like someone to do this, but we still have no volunteers to actually do it. I would volunteer to do it myself, but it's hard for me to commit to it. (For productivity reasons I usually have LessWrong blocked on my computer except in the evenings, and there are many evenings when I don't have time to log on at all.)

I propose that we use essentially the same model used for the Open Threads. If it's time for a new Reading Group post and nobody's posted it yet, post it yourself. If you feel that you can probably commit to help with this on occasion, please mention this in the comments. (I understand that having a few people volunteer while everybody else stays quiet might increase the bystander effect, but I think it's useful to have at least a few people mention that they can help. Everybody else, even if you didn't volunteer in the comments here, please step up to the plate anyway if you see nobody else is posting.)

We had a number of discussions / polls in the previous thread about exactly how the reading group should be conducted: What should the pace be? Should we re-post the entire article or just post a link to the original? Should we post individual articles (at whatever pace we decide) or should we post all the articles of the sequence all together? (This last link is to a new poll I just put up.) Or maybe we should just have a link on the sidebar to where the reading group is currently holding?

I propose that we start off the reading group with whatever seems to be the most popular options, and that we re-assess towards the end of each sequence. So for example we might start off at a rate of one individual article every other day1, which would mean we'd probably finish the first sequence in a little less than a month. Towards the end of that time we'd do the polls again and perhaps switch to a different pace or to posting the whole sequence at once.

Actionable items:

 


1 At the time of this posting there are 8 people who voted for 1 article per day, 6 said 1 every other day, and 2 said 1 per week. Going with 1 every other day, at least to start off, seems a reasonable compromise.

 

3 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by [deleted] · 2015-03-01T23:03:32.984Z · score: 8 (8 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'll volunteer. The reason the process cannot be automated is because you need to come up with relevant questions and discussion prompts. I'll be willing to do that on a two week schedule.

Edit: if I did it though it would be one posting every two weeks covering the full sequence. I don't think a daily reading group would be useful.

comment by acchan · 2015-03-01T19:44:55.005Z · score: 6 (6 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I volunteer. I'm in a good position to commit to it. But I'm wondering why can't the process of posting regular threads be automated? I assume it's not possible because I'd expect it to be commonplace if it was, but all regular threads seem to be posted manually.

comment by iarwain1 · 2015-03-13T14:42:13.095Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I notice that the book provides links to the original articles, and in the introduction Rob encourages people to comment at those links. I'm going to now agree with those who promoted just putting in a link to the original article. As of this comment, the votes on this were 7-6 in favor of posting the whole article. But I'm switching my vote (don't know how to do this on the original poll), which makes it 7-6 in favor of just posting a link.