[TAG] Ya know, I've changed my mind.

[mso@oz.net]

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 08:11:19PM -0800, Mike Orr wrote:
>> Bruce Ferrell wrote:
>> [A lot of unfriendly stuff.]
>>
>> AFAIK we still have an open-door policy on TAG membership.  Is it time
>> to reconsider this?
>
> Not as I see it. It's kinda like free speech, Mike; there are thousands
> of reasons that people don't like it - a lot of Russian immigrants think
> that Americans are insane to allow something that subversive ([sigh]...)
>  - but the arguments for keeping it and defending it are so compelling
> that the alternative nothing less than suicide for a society based on
> that as one of its priniciples.
>
> We're not quite that polarized here, but _one_ visit from _one_
> loudmouth should not cause us to change policy in major ways.
>
>> The list is primarily for question-answerers, but
>> we have occasionally encouraged Linux newbies who might be answerers
>> later to subscribe, to improve their own knowledge.  But that was before
>> the number of questions went down and the number of off-topic threads
>> went up.  Is there a feasable way to make people demonstrate they know
>> what the list is for and are prepared to be compatible with it before
>> their subscription is approved?
>
> [blink] Aren't you the guy who wanted the Lgang archives opened to the
> public because "we shouldn't keep any secrets from the community"? You
> might not like this much, but good old Bruce is part of that community.
> He's one of the people who receives the product of our efforts.

There's a difference between asking for a minor test of competence and
goodwill vs having a closed cabal running the show.  "You get in if you
meet a (minimal) requirement" is different than "You get in if we say you
get in, bwahahahaha!"  (Said by two mafia types in expensive suits
guarding the door.)  The latter is not necessarily fatal to open-source
development, but it does go against the spirit.  Of course, this gets into
our differing views of LG, which we've already discussed.  (Me focusing on
the community-built aspect of LG and noting the current editors came from
the readership (the editors are trustees for the readers); you focusing on
it's editor-designed nature (the editors make the zine).)

-- Mike