Milestone-Proposal talk:"Mother of All Demos"

From IEEE Milestones Wiki

Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.

Name and Citation -- Djkemp (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2016 (CST)

To the general public (and others), the "Mother" aspect of the title is not descriptive of the milestone. The use of "mother: in the citation should be more apparent if it is to be used.

Re: Name and Citation -- Djkemp (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2016 (CDT)

Replace this text with your reply

Having heard the discussion at the History Committee, re-reading the proposal as well as the guidelines for citations it would seem appropriate to revise the citation. Milestones are world-wide recognitions and as such vernacular terms might not be the best to use. The current proposed citation might perhaps be OK within a rephrased citation outlining why the demo was so significant.

Re: Re: Name and Citation -- Schodge (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2016 (CDT)

The citation title was rewritten and the "Mother of All Demos" name is moved to the text. I believe this balances the need for formality and clarity with the need to include the popular moniker the event has come to be known by along with a description of its importance, within the space/word constraints we have.

Re: Re: Re: Name and Citation -- Djkemp (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2016 (CDT)
Replace this text with your reply

I can support the rework on the citation - nicely done. Dave

The first question in the proposal is not answered. -- Djkemp (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2016 (CST)

See the question about litigation in the proposal.

Re: The first question in the proposal is not answered. -- k3hz (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2016 (CST)

-> DB; The term 'Mother of all demos', in Australian venacular implies a disaster, and does not tell me anything. A name change is recomemnded to be meaningful.

Re: The first question in the proposal is not answered. -- Administrator4 (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2016 (CST)

The question about being under litigation was added to the milestone proposal mechanism (at History Committee request) after this proposal was submitted. It will be useful going forward but should not be applied ex post facto

I've read it and see that it is well supported. -- Microman (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2016 (CDT)

Recommend Approval

Support for proposal -- Djkemp (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2016 (CDT)

I support this proposal as an IEEE Milestone.