incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>
Subject RE: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Date Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:34:09 GMT

Hey, a terrific blow for community there, Rob!

Please don't ever do that again for a matter under active discussion.  Not ever.

I urge you to revert those changes.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [] 
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:57
Subject: Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Nóirín Plunkett <> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Rob Weir <> wrote:
>> The range of contributors to the website is identical to the range of
>> contributors to the wiki.  The only difference is in the wiki case
>> they need to take the additional step to sign up for an account on the
>> wiki.  In other case they merely submit a patch to the mailing list
>> they are already subscribed to.  So in terms of effort, the patch
>> route is simpler for the contributor.
> I'm not sure on what basis you make any of those assertions; I
> certainly disagree.
> There's a qualitative difference between submitting a patch that
> someone else has to apply, and having the power to make a change
> without having to wait for someone else to get to their mail and say
> it's ok.
> And, while you could argue either way as to how big the difference is
> for a single patch, once you get into multiple patches, it seems clear
> to me that the wiki route is simpler for the contributor.

Well, after a couple days of discussion, I've seen no one step up and
make these simple additions to the wiki. So whatever "power" the wiki
has, it seems hypothetical at this point.

I've gone ahead and made the simple addition to the web site.  The
power of CMS is reaffirmed:

If someone eventually does decide that it is worth their time to add a
treatment of this topic to the wiki, I'd be happy to add a link to it
from that web page, per Simon's suggestion.  But I still think this
works far better as a folksonomy rather than a curated taxonomy.
Whether it is done on the website or the wiki is really not very
important.  But I think that attempts to enforce a a designed taxonomy
will be futile.  Better to set general guidelines, which is what I've
done on the website.


> N

View raw message