On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 12:21, JamesBritt wrote:
> > My first thoughts during the thread was that this community is able to
> > metabolize a disruptive comment and make use of it. Later contributions by
> > Stibbs himself made me realize this guy is not rattling cages. He has
> > provided a thoughtful contribution.
> 
> 
> I don't see what was so disruptive, challenging or even quasi-trollish about
> stibbs's comment.  He was simply recounting a personal acencedote, hoping
> the Ruby community could learn from it.

That was my take. I saw it as a "story" derived from stibbs own
experiences. 
> 
> What was interesting was the number of responses that said there was no
> problem, or that prolonged discussion was unproductive.  

From the perspective of the overall Ruby community there probably isn't
any problem. Everyone here seem to manage quite well, thank you. Answers
that cannot be found online, in the offline docs or even within the
source can be generally answered with a post to this list. The community
is cooperative.

But, it is also very small vis a vis the general community of potential
Ruby practioners. Given that the majority here want to see use of Ruby
greatly expanded, for various reasons, where an obstacle to this is
perceived it needs to be addressed.

In addition, the documentation model that works so well within a
smallish community will falter whn scaled to a large one.

> *They* sounded more
> like trolls.

I wouldn't go -that- far! :-) Perhaps defensive, or perhaps many just
genuinely do not see a problem as there really isn't one for the Ruby
community per se.
> 
> It is to the credit of the folks on this list that discussions *can* be
> prolonged without degrading into name calling or religious wars.
> 

Agreed. As Pogo observed, "we have met the enemy and they are us."
Unlike the larger real-world political arena, however, the Ruby
community is taking positive steps to address the issue.
> 

Regards,

Kent Starr