Andy Dougherty wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> > Closed-for-posting mailing lists that are publically readable is the
> > best suggestion we've had to meet these ends so far.
> >
> > Anyone have better suggestions?
>
> Just that it not be *too* hard to get on the closed lists (and,
> symmetrically, that it not be *too* hard for the list chair to bounce
> someone *off* the list if that person is judged to be persistently and
> seriously damaging to the list).
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. So, if you really
want to help with async i/o, that's fine, join -internals-io, but be
aware that if you aren't actively contributing code you'll be dropped.
I'd prefer the exact criteria for "not actively contributing" remain a
little fuzzy, since some people may really contribute for a good two
months, then travel for 4 weeks, then contribute again. However, it
seems reasonable that if someone's been on the list long enough for
projects to come up that they pass on repeatedly, the list chair should
have some type of authority to say "look, it's time you did something,
or take off" (in fact, this could even be automated :-).
I was going to suggest a criteria for initial membership of having
authored at least a CPAN module or core patch, but I'm not sure. It
seems reasonable that someone shouldn't be programming core if they
haven't really done anything big in Perl before (and given it back), but
I'm not sure if this is too strict.
-Nate
