At 08:20 AM 10/10/00 -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
>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 rather not limit the subscriptions to people that are coding. We need
as many folks with good design skills as we can muster, and I'd rather not
require them to also submit code. The two skills (coding and designing) are
separate ones--good coders can (and often are) lousy designers, while good
designers aren't necessarily good coders. Good design skills are also
significantly scarcer than good coding skills.
I also don't want to lose the folks with experience in an area just because
they don't have time to do code either. Someone like Graham, Tim, or Alan
might well be able to drop a mail message or six in between other things
while still not having the time (or interest) to sit down and actually
write a chunk of code.
That pretty much leaves us with "wing it" as a methodology, but that's
probably OK for now.
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk