Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > > Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists
> >
> >Yep, this is my only concern. It should be reasonably easy to say "I
> >really want to help" and get on the closed lists. Perhaps the best way
> >of making sure the lists don't bloat into "everyone has an opinion"
> >lists is to require that *all* members contribute code to that list's
> >purpose. If you're on the list, you _must_ program.
>
> I'd rather not limit the subscriptions to people that are coding. We need
> as many folks with good design skills as we can muster, and I'd rather not
> require them to also submit code. The two skills (coding and designing) are
> separate ones--good coders can (and often are) lousy designers, while good
> designers aren't necessarily good coders. Good design skills are also
> significantly scarcer than good coding skills.
I think we're talking about two different things, but I do agree with
you.
My concern is that there needs to be *some* type of criteria for who can
join a list, which is published, easily measured, and widely-understood.
One part of Dave Grove's concerns I do agree with is the _potential_
(not certainty) for lists to become ad hoc, exclusionary entities. If
list membership is based on intangible "this guy's cool" measurements,
then there is the risk of a "good old boys" mentality. I have seen this
before at my former employer (hence why I left) and it's not pretty. :-)
There is the possibility of separate lists. Why not have -internals be
the top-level list still? Anyone can join, anyone can comment, etc. On
the spawning of the -internals-io sublist, though, only concerned
developers should join. If there comes to be an impass, they can post a
summary on -internals. "Ok, there's two ways we're thinking about this,
whatd'ya think?" It could make things more efficient, and allow
measurable list membership (anyone on -internals, coders on
-internals-sublist).
Anyways, I'm not trying to push my idea per se, but I do think there
needs to be a widely-known criteria for list membership if it's going to
be restricted. If it's ad hoc, it will likely end up exclusionary in
some way - even if there are counterefforts - because people are, by
nature, "clique-ish". We all like hanging out with people we know. So I
think we need some type of "policy" in place - even if it's a very
flexible, relaxed policy - to establish who can join lists. Otherwise we
risk arbitrary decisions and exclusivity.
I disagree a highly-bureaucratic, checks-and-balances approach is what
we need. However, I do think a 2-3 sentence statement of purpose and
membership for sublists could solve many problems. Similar to what we
have with -language, but fleshed out more.
-Nate
