3 ms·

Only if a) the bar(rier) is correlated with quality and b) there are no other quality gates elsewhere in the process.

• johnisgood 8y ago
  So does anyone know if in this exact situation it is, or it is not, or are we all just assuming that it's necessary a good thing and bash on anyone who dares to bring it up that it may not be the case? I said "arguably", and yes, while I did not provide an argument, I thought someone else could.
  • geofft 8y ago
    Arguably, Nick Cameron is an agent of the Knights Templar and Cargo is a secret plan towards world domination. You need to say why you think things are plausible. (In this exact situation I do know that there's a quality gate later in the process, and it would be very easy for you to determine that too with at most five minutes of research.)
    • johnisgood 8y ago
      I know what you are trying to say. Personally I would like to hear convincing reasons why lowering barriers to contribution is inherently a good thing, in all cases. I mentioned a few cases later on where it might not be favorable, to me, at least. And again: it was just a way to get the attention of people who might agree with it, to hear their side. Or to start/stimulate a discussion. I don't like to just believe things because it sounds good and because it has been repeatedly said to be good, without explaining why. The point was to question it, or come up with scenarios where it is not favorable. Do you agree that such scenarios exist where it is not a good thing, or not?