On 2009-12-28 11:20:53 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu
<[email protected]> said:
Michel Fortin wrote:
I think it should be as open as possible. If done in a separate smaller
group, it may be a good idea to post reports to the general newsgroup
more or less regularly so that those who cannot participate in the
detailed discussions have an idea of where it's going, and also to get
more general input.
That's obviously the best way to go, but there are a couple of
circumstances that make that more difficult.
1. Chapter drafts will be the basis for discussion, but understandably
the publisher does not allow me to freely distribute them.
I see. I find that unfortunate, because this seems to imply it'll need
to be a closed group, not only closed regarding the participants but
also regarding external observers (because the basis of the discussion
will be hidden from them).
Often you can evaluate how good something is not only by looking at the
final result, but by looking at the process that led to it. Having an
archive of the past is often very useful to check why some things have
been made that way. But that works best if the discussion are done in
the open.
2. Time. There are regulars on this group that have a "when in doubt,
make them sweat" policy. I think it's a very good and gainful attitude
for everyone involved, and I generally enjoy discussing this or that
idea because it helps me and others gain a better understanding, but
this time there won't be much time for discussions of the form:
a) Poster: "Subtle issue X sounds like a bad idea. I don't agree with it."
b) <Long argumentation back and forth.>
c) Poster: "I stay unconvinced." or "That makes sense."
There will be very little time for anything like this, particularly if
explaining X requires a fair amount of background building.
Building a shared vision is very difficult among only a small group of
people, and doing so for a larger group will be an enormous drag. I
feel very lucky that Walter and I share views most of the time (except,
of course, when he's wrong :o)).
I think it'd be a good idea to set an objective for the group for that
limited time frame. This way if the discussion deviates towards
something off-topic it's easy to suggest posting to the general or the
D.learn newsgroup instead, or if the discussion is draining taking too
much time in explanations it's easy to justify postponing that to later
in order to fulfill the more pressing objectives. Just be careful not
setting the goal too broadly.
Also keep in mind that we don't really need a shared vision among
everyone. What's needed is someone who takes the decisions. Discussion
is only needed to help that person take the right decisions. Although
consensus among all members certainly boosts the decider
self-confidence, it is not required, and not necessarily desirable
either. A consensus among only a few key people is all that is needed,
and this has little to do with who is allowed to raise issues and
propose solutions.
And those few key people are the implementors, because if they don't
agree the result isn't gonna be pretty.
(This reminds me pretty much of how HTML5 is being developed right now:
Ian Hickson, the spec editor, decides what goes in and out. But he
always seeks the broadest consensus among the major browser vendors
because in the end it's them who decide what they want to implement,
and if they refuse to implement the spec, the spec is useless. This
doesn't prevent the WHATWG mailing list from being open to all. I did
some research a few years ago, posted the results on the list and after
some discussion it was used to make the <figure> element what it is
now. I wouldn't have bothered if the list wasn't open.)
--
Michel Fortin
[email protected]
http://michelf.com/
