[FusionAdmin] Admin list usage (was: The New Layout -- Mockup)

[Will Farrington]

On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 00:47 +0200, Kristian Lyngstøl wrote:
> Please don't top quote and only quote the relevant part you are answering to.
> 
> On 7/24/07, Will Farrington <wcfarrington at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Simply put, within hours we'd have had a Digg posting on the front page
> > and 328793754 rabid forum-goers all trying desperately to have their own
> > individual little request put into the theme... and as a result things
> > would take longer and the final product would be of lesser quality.
> 
> People keep throwing this argument right and left. That we get
> attention shouldn't be a reason to choose a closed development cycle.
> And I also think you overestimate the importance of this. If digg
> people really want to read all about it, then why shouldn't they be
> allowed to?

Because it's begging people to judge an unfinished product as if it were
a finished one. After all, it's unfair to both the person designing the
layout as well as the project which is represented by the layout when
people begin to assume and critique it as if it's an entirely final
product - which it isn't.

Imagine if half of the final Harry Potter book had been released a year
ago before the entire book was finished. Much of the book would be
unfairly judged before it's been through editing, let alone finished.

> > Furthermore, the public shouldn't really be judging a theme that isn't
> > finalized at all. It just makes no sense to have people scream at the
> > the top of their lungs to come check out an unfinished product.
> 
> We created the web list for a reason. If everyone is going to use the
> admin list just because they are afraid of others that are not
> previously affiliated with the project could comment, then we have a
> problem.

It's not a matter of fear - it's matter of having a sensible development
model for a quality product. Designing a web layout isn't like writing
code for Compiz - you don't just chuck it up on a repository and have
everyone and their grandmother contributing. I have never, ever known a
quality site to be developed that way. That isn't to say that the
process isn't good for other types of development - but that it's not
the best way to go about designing a website. Even the previous Beryl
site and the Compiz.org theme were developed privately and only released
publicly once complete.

> There is no-one forcing you to take into account the opinions of
> people you do not care about, but you are forcing people who do NOT
> care about web stuff to read about it when it really isn't necessary,
> therefore reducing the value of the admin list.

I had a few paragraphs typed up in response to this, but upon looking
over this reply, I opted to remove them because I felt they were rude.
I'll just leave it with "I disagree."

> It is my very strong belief that the admin list should only be used if
> there is an overwhelmingly good reason the general public shouldn't be
> allowed to see the procedures we're using. Not wanting comments from
> "no-names" and preffering the opinion of a closed circle of "high
> rollers" is not a nice way to run a community. Not wanting too many
> comments is also not even a half good reason to keep this closed.

While I respect your contributions in terms of code, the actual
development aspect of the project and the website are, I believe, two
entirely different aspects that, while they must coexist, cannot be
handled in the same way.

To bring back a point I brought up earlier, the new Ubuntu site's design
was not publicly shown. While I can't read the minds of those in charge
of such a decision, I do wholeheartedly believe that, while the project
is a huge proponent of open source in all aspects, that there are
occasions for which a closed development cycle is not only desirable,
but preferable.

Can you imagine 'Band A' being forced to release 'Album B' publicly to
the world when only half the album is done and it's not even mastered
entirely?

> Also, it's not like we avoid extremely drawn out discussions this way
> anyway, all the people usually contributing to drawn out discussions
> are already on the admin list.

Long discussions aren't what concern me - I think they are, sometimes, a
very good thing. Having thousands upon thousands of people trying to
judge this project, myself, and the individual designing the page
unfairly based on an unfinished product is what does concern me.

> Simply put: The admin list should rarely if ever be used. Certainly
> not to discuss layout changes.

The Admin List exists for a purpose. Really, what you're suggesting
would be entirely applicable to any discussion since... really, anything
we speak of here _could_ be put on another list. That doesn't mean it
ought.