-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 08/14/2014 09:20 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
Patrick, that was what got me, too - I thought it focused too much
on the concept of restriction rather than enablement. Care and
feeding isn't the same as "weeding." Promotion based on meritocracy
is good; promotion based on "we need more bodies to make up the
community" is bad. Demotion is always bad, but is sometimes
necessary when someone goes off into the weeds themselves, but this
text focuses too much on control, like I said.
Late in replying but just one thought ...
I like your content and am generally fine with the tone. I don't mind
being a bit confrontative if it serves to get attention without losing
people.
My only concern was with the length of the section -- it borders on
being a bit too long. Well, that's the thinking I have had from the
beginning, to focus on short-and-punchy rather than long exposition.
That might be another discussion point for us all -- do we like/want
it to be short pieces (even where it might miss nuances thereof) or
should each section flow to its own natural length/need?
- - Karsten
- --
Karsten 'quaid' Wade .^\ CentOS Doer of Stuff
http://TheOpenSourceWay.org \
http://community.redhat.com
@quaid (identi.ca/twitter/IRC) \v' gpg: AD0E0C41
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
iEYEARECAAYFAlP0BbQACgkQ2ZIOBq0ODEFsJQCgw/FsMRgUPLHCUuwn5f7ud6EI
+bsAoMwwa06CmqCK0sIWNPyvnI3QzP/I
=MNNf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----