[squeak-dev] Re: 4.1 release tasks
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Mar 19 23:08:48 UTC 2010
On 3/19/2010 3:17 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> The experiment was to provide the SOB with an easy way to post some pertinent FAQ items that the community in general would find helpful.
> Hypothesis was 'Perhaps if it were really easy, the SOB would put some FAQ type items up"
I think a better hypothesis is this one: Perhaps if there actually were
a good FAQ, the SOB might put it up prominently in some place?
Simply put, you're confusing content with visibility. The board has
ample opportunity to make things visible but if the content is bad (like
in your FAQ that was a bunch of scraped Emails from Squeak-dev) wide
visibility is actually harmful.
> Data gathered to date:
> "4 out of 7 SOB members are opposed to the blog as presented" (one spoke on #squeak)
> 1 responded in a somewhat ambiguous way, perhaps opposed.
Make that five. More importantly, the opposition is towards
impersonating the board, calling your blog squeakboardsomethingorother,
pretending it would actually represent the board. I'm pretty sure nobody
on the board is opposed to a good FAQ, but I'm also pretty sure nobody
likes some random guy pretending to represent the board in his private blog.
More information about the Squeak-dev