Re: Content patch for "care and feeding"
On 08/23/2014 06:30 AM, Joseph Ottinger wrote:
The key is to write for the medium and audience; short pages
aren't important, but short leading sentences *are*.
Agree. And as we're not
confined by publishing costs, we can always link
to deeper content to clarify, make an additional example, add more
detail, etc.
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.
However back to the original
post...
I think the discussion was on the tone around hierarchies and inequality
within roles and among peers. While I do think there are obviously those
who carry more clout, if I recall, the section implied greater deference
for those with greater profiles rather than on participation. In
addition, the text sounded like decision-making and roles within the
project should be based on a few selects' opinions/input, i.e.
gatekeepers, with elevated authority, even if they had limited
experience/input to do with the issue or the project.