On Mar 25, 2011, at 8:14 PM, Laura Creighton <l...@openend.se> wrote:
> In a message of Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:14:02 -0400, Jesse Noller writes: >> Ben, >> >> In principle I agree with you - I would like open archives for the >> specific reasons you cite, but I value the ability for people who may >> not be comfortable with coming out and openly discussing things on a >> list if they know it's open to the magical powers of google and public >> archives. Heck, having open archives makes it *easier to find out* >> about the list itself, serving the purpose even more. >> >> But - weighed in favor of the target audience (those that may not yet >> be comfortable with "full disclosure", or discussing personality >> clashes on the tracker, or those worried about future employers >> digging up stuff) - I want to error on the side of the closed list >> archives for now. In several months, we all might realize it was a >> monumental mistake. At that time, we can fix the problem. > > I would have thought that the set of people who were more comfortable > with the closed list was prettry close to zero. Because the problem > with saying something stupid in public is really not one of perfect > strangers using google to find out that I said something stupid once, > but rather that current members of the target group, in this case > the subscribers to python-dev or python-dev-mentors will find out > that I think stupid thoughts _now_, and think less of me for it, and > maybe say some nasty things about me. > > Python-dev historically has been rather special. The forbidding message > "Do not post general Python questions to this list. For help with > Python please see the Python help page." in a red boarded box is > fairly effective at getting the message "do not waste the valuable > time of these people" across. For a while, I remember, we lied and > said that subscriptions to python-dev needed to be approved, even > when they didn't. That seemed to deter some people from even trying > to join, which was probably either a good thing, or a bad thing on > the whole (but, of course, we have no way to measure). And the other > thing that makes python-dev unusual is that it is casually read by > a large number of people who never say a word. All open mailing lists > have lurkers, especially those who read them without a subscription, > through some other means, but python-dev is unsual in the number of > people who try to read it 'just in case something important happens', > and 'just to feel like they know what is going on in the python community'. > All of these factors add to the 'don't waste people's time' factor. > > Thus there is a lot to be said about having a separate group, where > python-dev contributors answer questions that they have made time for, > even if others might consider them a waste of time. Because those > others are not forced to subscribe and read them. But I don't see > such a compelling reason for a closed group. It's not as if we expect > that mentoring to be a source of deeply personal stories and > anecdotes. Or that people want the safety to discuss heretical > approaches to changing CPython not expected to go down well with > python-dev. > > It all seems to boil down to 'some people would be more comfortable > this way'. I'd like to get some metrics on how many of those people > there are. And I'd like to measure them against a different group, > people like me who won't contribute to a closed group, in part because > the whole closed-ness of it makes me undomfortable. My experience > with closed-groups vs open groups has been almost entirely negative, > which would be reason enough for me to hesitate to join one, but > especially when it comes to a _mentoring_ list. The single most > important reason why I would post something I think might be really > stupid is because 'if I don't understand this, then there are probably > others out there like me in the same boat'. So I ask such things with > the hope that the exchange will be googled _a whole lot_ in the > future. And again, when I answer a question fully and completely, I > do so thinking 'I'll bet a lot of people, and not this one soul, will > be interested in this'. If the answer will only be seen by the > comparatively few people in a closed mailing list, I am comparatively > unmotivated to write anything, or write anything substantial. > > I've seen a whole lot of very bad behaviour on the part of self-styled > leaders of closed mailing lists. They determine the party-line of the > group and then, because it is private, blast those souls who do not > conform with impunity. Having been on the receiving end of a number > of such exchanges, my conclusion has been that having the whole thing > open is often the only defence one has. Firstly, most people are > more restrained when what they say can be seen by the world at large, > so some of these incidents would not happen. But secondly, the ability > to share the mail with others greatly empowers the people on the > receiving end. But if you cannot get an outside opinion because doing > so would violate the group's closed-ness, then you are more vulnerable. > > The point of bringing this up is not because I think that > python-dev-mentors is likely to run into these sorts of problems, but > to let you know that there is a substantial number of people out > there who are not emotionally comfortable with closed groups as > opposed to open ones. And I don't see why the emotional comfort of > those who like closed groups should have precedence over the emotional > comfort of those of us who find closed groups threatening. > > The argument 'we'll try it closed, and then we will see about opening > it up, later' doesn't work for me, because every time I have been > involved in such an effort, except once, the end result has been that > later _never_ happens. The people who like the group closed _always_ > successfully resist such change. It is too much easier for people > like me who only got involved in the first place because of the > expectation of the group's eventual opening to drop out and quit the > group than to spend the amount of energy necessary to open the group > up. And for me, at any rate, my reluctance to spend the energy is in > large part because of the closed-ness of the group. I'd care a lot > more about the group, if the group was open. > > I don't think that people like me are that rare -- hmm, I should rephrase > that -- I don't think that people with this attitude towards closed groups > are that rare. And it is hard to find out about us, because we're the > people who don't join such things. So no matter how well a given closed > group works, according to those who are members of such a thing, it is > impossible to say whether the group would have been _so_ _much_ _better_ > if it were open -- or whether being closed was essential to its success. > > So 'In several months we might all realize that this was a momentual > mistake and then fix the problem' never works. No matter what you do, > there will always be some people who like it, so you will never get the > 'all'. But what might be possible to measure is the number of people > who won't be joining a closed list, but who would join an open one, > versus those who will join the closed list but wouldn't join the > open one, by having some sort of vote. Of course, a vote could only > measure people's intentions, which are often different from what they > really do, but it would at least allow some sort of measurement of > what isn't happening, which is otherwise close to impossible to see. > > I for one would feel a lot better about what I was missing out on in > python-dev-mentors if I knew that there were some actual human beings > benefitting from it who would not have joined an open group. Without > some sort of metric, I will always worry that it was done 'in case > there might be people like that out there' or 'to test the theory > that the reason we don't have enough python-dev contributers is > because python-dev is an open group' without any actual use-cases > at all. > >> >> "The perfect is the enemy of the good." :) >> > > "If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." > Lord Kelvin: (Sir William Thomson) > > Laura Thank you for the feedback Laura - I think that if the people volunteering to be mentors (a fair number have) can vote and/or change the policy once we have agreed to a code of conduct for the group. I for one like to assume In the better side of people and things, and therefore I believe that the list as outlined will be a force for good, and not bad. Remember, anyone with a subscription can access anything - so it's not truly private. Should you wish to participate, you would be welcome. Jesse >
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com