Scott Carr wrote: > It is also a quick way to kill things. If you have too open of access, > then people will change things on a whim, and it could cause problems in > other areas that wasn't expected. There are two different sides to this > of course, but for the most part it has been working for OOo. > > There are problems on both sides of the fence.
It's not an all or nothing proposition. Major decisions require lots of discussion and more levels of approval. Minor decisions should be delegated. The ammount of discussion and approvoal needed to do something should be in proportion to how significant the change is. Incidentally, I think that Wikipedia demonstrates that a *very* distributed system can actually work quite well. My own experience with OOoAuthors tells me that people do not change things on a whim. Most people actually seem to be very hesitant to touch anything. Social pressure is more than enough to keep people from wrecking something on a whim. I actually struggle trying to convince people to make decisions on their own when they are perfectly able to do so. Of course, if you ever find that trust was misplaced (someone vandalizes the site) you just take away the permissions and use CVS (or Plone) tracking to revert their changes with minimal effort. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | I don't want it perfect, Join OOoAuthors today! | I want it Tuesday. http://oooauthors.org | --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
