On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote:
> Chad: what you state IS quite desirable, but is, unfortunately, equally not > feasible. > > You can moderate join requests, you can moderate members' posts, but the > distinction you seem to be looking for in your original email is > near-impossible to establish. > > Perhaps membership to the list should be predicated on assignment of a > source parameter, and detection of that parameter being in-use? (This would > cut off a lot of casual or tangential looky-loos ... not unlike myself, who > either haven't had need to apply, or have applied and simply haven't used. > It could be a decent yardstick ... but then you have people doing widgets > and other integrations, who may never need a source param ...) > > In my case, I just started developing using twitters api. I came here to ask you guys questions for help. I have no app in production so I can't refer anyone to a particular project. I came here so seek info. I'd feel put off if I couldn't learn anything just because I haven't built anything with twitters api before. Thats kind of a catch22. > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Chad Etzel <jazzyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Clint Shryock <cts...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > How then would you propose acceptance to this group is determined? >> >> I don't know, that's why I'm asking. I've never admin'd a google group >> before. >> >> > I think >> > it's in Twitter's best interest to allow information on their API for >> new >> > developers as accessible as possible to build their platform. This list >> is >> > a great resource in accomplishing that. >> >> > >> > In my opinion you should have contacted people from this list you've had >> > interactions with privately and shown them in that manner. Otherwise, I >> > would have solicited people interested in screening an app. >> >> That, of course, is an option, but getting responses to anything >> posted here is a total crapshoot, and sending a message to a subset of >> those people makes chances for a response even worse. I'd rather send >> a message to the group since that's what it is for, without fear of >> having it be spread all over the place. Maybe that's not possible, >> and I can deal with that. >> >> Anyway, it was just a suggestion/question. Maybe it's not feasible. >> If not, then nevermind :) >> -chad >> > >
