Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michael Jouravlev wrote:
On 3/21/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consider the C2 Wiki and Wikipedia as analogies. Yes, it's easy to
delete obviously false information. It's just as easy to reintroduce
it. Keeping the worst of the cruft out is pretty much a full-time job
for volunteers who take on the task, and there's not even agreement
between them which is the cruft. Subtle or infrequently viewed
incorrect information can, and does, remain for long periods of time.
Spectacular failures occur that make headlines in the mass news media.
Just to be clear: are you speculating in the above, or are you speaking
from direct experience maintaining such resources?
This happens all the time.
I'll ask you the same question I asked of George: Are you speaking from
personal experience maintaining wiki resources?
Yeah, usually political stuff. Old Pope - new Pope, for example.
Idle curiosity. Which site is that?
Despite the extreme kinds of comparisons like that, there are attempts
here to portray what I am saying as unreasonable. But how unreasonable
is it? Basically I am saying that you can drastically reduce the
barriers to entry for new committers and the potential gains for the
project far outweigh the risks.
Why giving a commit priviliges to someone if you don't like (or
haven't even seen) stuff that he brings in?
Well, I've already presented my views on this and this gets repetitious.
All I can do is make the general comment that the reason to adopt a
different approach would be that you recognize that the current approach
is not really working.
I grant that if you think everything is basically hunky dory, then there
is no reason to change tack. Why fix what is not broken? So maybe it
comes down to that. Is everything hunky dory?
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/
> Not to question does he
> really bring something in . Most project originators are dictators.
> They want to share and they want to use external force to move
> forward, but they want the project to reflect their ideas.
Michael.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
