Sometimes it's better to _think_ before talking or doing :-) And it's nothing wrong to think after talking and doing - and make changes and adjustments.
I don't think open source or "meritocracy" is about doing, it's more about feedback and review and improvements. Costin On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Jeff Turner wrote: > 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 > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
