incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Making mailing lists useful (was Re: [Proposal])
Date Fri, 12 Aug 2011 15:53:13 GMT
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<> wrote:
> -1
> 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.

I disagree.   Bikeshedding on the list is not an impediment to action.
 I implemented one of the proposals discussed on the list. It is in
SVN.  If someone feels strongly, they can revert.  But note that in
CTR, -1's are invalid unless accompanied by technical objections, a
statement of an alternative proposal and a willingness to implement
the alternative.

>  - Dennis
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir []
> Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 07:57
> To:
> 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.
> -Rob
>> N

View raw message