On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 12:50:55PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 02:17:38PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > > > http://www.freeroller.net/page/acoliver/20030108#when_is_community_not_a > >... > > - he was criticized for a message that he made > > in jest, but which wasn't at all obvious in > > that intent. > > To be honest, I usually find people who say "but that was a joke" are simply > trying to cover up a social blunder under the ruse of "you didn't get it." > Whether the case here or not, it certainly was non-obvious.
FYI, Jakarta has a tradition of people like Jon Stevens bitching at everyone else for being all talk and no action. This is many people's first exposure to the idea of meritocracy. It's no good whining about "it's all wrong, someone should fix it"; there is no 'someone', there's just *you*. Something wrong with the website? Send a patch. Think there should be a newsletter? Congratulations, you're the editor. Want a Wiki? Bug someone for karma and go install it. This is not anarchy and it's *not* democracy, it's a meritocracy. The Doers' opinion has more weight than the Talkers. Stuff happens because people make it happen. Generally it happens with some form of consensus in the larger community, but once the "what" is agreed on, the "how" is up to people willing to do the work. I think that is what Andy was attempting to convey. I 'got' the joke immediately because plays on an underlying theme at Jakarta. One evidently not present here. > And why did he unsubscribe? We can make guesses, but that's about it. Unless > he clarifies further in his blog or posts elsewhere... > > > "Just Do It" is a great ad slogan, but it doesn't seem to me to always be > > the appropriate model for group projects. > > Right. Slogans deliberately oversimplify. "Just Do It" must be compared to "Just Talk About It". If it comes to slogans, I know which I'd prefer. > > Yes, it makes things happen. But > > when people are actively discussing an issue of communal interest, it makes > > sense to me that the issue be discussed, various ways to doing something > > examined, tradeoffs weighed, and then execute a change based upon some > > concensus. 100% consensus on things like how a Wiki system should work is never going to emerge. After 80% consensus on the broad issues (like whether to have a Wiki at all) emerges, it's best to get something (anything) done, rather than wait for the last 20%. > > Otherwise, when more than one person cares about a subject, "Just Do > > It" results in one person's vision being realized, and a cycle of > > potentially conflicting changes necessary to stablize the code. > > Am I missing something? > > You're missing the fact that a "just do it" attitude can be totally > inconsiderate towards your peers. "I don't care about your opinion, I'm just > getting it done." It certainly doesn't help foster a community based on > mutual respect. Attacking the "Just Do It" slogan is easy. It's a straw man. The *actual* POV that (I guess) Andy was promoting is more complex: YES, by all means gain overall consensus, but once you've established "what", don't let the differing opinions on "how" prevent action. In this view, it is better to have ANY Wiki (here, UseModWiki) than try to establish a nonexistent consensus on which Wiki everyone agrees is best. That can be sorted out later, if people want it sorted out badly enough. --Jeff
