Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:41629
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain pooteeweet.org from 88.198.8.16 cause and error)
Cc: "Stefan Koopmanschap" <stefan@phpgg.nl>,
 internals@lists.php.net
Message-ID: <C21BEFC9-A108-4336-A9ED-F403F308D1B9@pooteeweet.org>
To: Guilherme Blanco <guilhermeblanco@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bcb7aa500811011017k52aeb15am2520bcb1a1668c29@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:36:23 +0100
References: <2077BA98-A58A-4EBD-8088-413654E878BC@pooteeweet.org> <7B.E2.40320.C817C094@pb1.pair.com> <bcb7aa500811011017k52aeb15am2520bcb1a1668c29@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: keeping traffic on this list manageable
From: mls@pooteeweet.org (Lukas Kahwe Smith)


On 01.11.2008, at 18:17, Guilherme Blanco wrote:

> The idea is awesome, but it'll definately not work. Sorry.
> By creating an UG profile subscription will allow again everyone to
> subscribe "a group" when it's really just one person that wants to
> write something. So the UG idea will not work.


this was the potential abuse situation i mentioned. i honestly think  
that most people will understand that people will not abuse this less  
bureaucracy approach if we feel that it will benefit PHP. if this  
fails, we can then decide on additional barriers, turing tests or  
whatever.

also in response to Larry .. thats why I said we should also accept  
"virtual UGs", so that things do not need to be linked to a geographic  
location. for all we care, people can be members of how ever many UGs  
they want to be in. again it comes down to the question of "can we  
trust our community"? of course there will be abusers, but the  
question is if they are sooo large in numbers that they will prevent  
this from working?

how many UGs are we expecting anyways? lets say we get 100 UGs to  
register. that would be quite an impressive number, but still  
manageable. if we get to 500 UGs, we would probably have to rethink  
the approach. like by seeing if we have mainly virtual or regional UGs  
etc. i think we can also weed out some fake UGs by just looking at  
their mailing list archives (no discussions means probably no UG). so  
if we do end up with 500 UGs that register and that want to actively  
take part in the discussion on internals, then i think this approach  
has validates itself:
1) it means we have helped quite a lot of UGs to form
2) it means we have grown the number of people that want to participate

if this means we again have to review our discussion process, i am  
more than happy to do so. until then i feel this process could help  
get this list back to a more productive communication flow. it seems  
to me like a lot of the screaming and even personal attacks are caused  
by the fear that concerns might simply get lost in the noise. if we  
can do something to get rid of this fear (though probably never  
entirely), i think we have a chance of improving the general tone and  
productivity of this list.

regards,
Lukas Kahwe Smith
mls@pooteeweet.org