Re: Can we improve things?

<quote who="BJörn Lindqvist">

> Which is why a transparent process is really really important.

I agree, though I've had concerns figuring out the things you raised next:

> Oh, and I don't believe the argument that "feelings might get hurt if
> someone is publicly rejected." If someones ego is so fragile that it
> breaks by being rejected from syndication, one must ask why you're
> publishing a blog for the world to see in the first place?
> is an important source of gnome related news and
> understandably, not everyone can belong.
> Not that I think very many would be rejected in an open system. It's not
> like people would apply unless they actually are interested in and writing
> about GNOME and free software.

I hope this is true, but I haven't been very confident about it. I've felt
uncomfortable from both sides though -- worried that public rejection will
offend, and that maybe I would be less editorially strict to avoid public
offense. This part I really haven't figured out to my satisfaction yet.

That said, I am happy so far that no one has been privately offended when
receiving a "sorry, no" or "not just yet" response. At least about feeds.
I've had a couple go slightly mental because I wouldn't put non-pgo style
hackergotchis up. :-)

(Despite all the noise, I'm mostly concentrating on making the guidelines
more clear and addressing the maintenance issues.)

- Jeff

-- 2008: Melbourne, Australia
       "Having strings in a language seems to be a case of premature
                        optimization." - Paul Graham

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]