On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think
>>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are
>>>> listed under the teams. Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or
>>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all -
>>>> individuals within the team have <=2?
>>>
>>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team.
>>
>> Hmm. Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from
>> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list.
>>
>> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more
>> prominent position. More like the reverse. Personally I think I'd
>
> Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote
> team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally
> not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion
> :-)
>
>> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're
>> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and
>> call it good.
>
> If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing?
If we want to have another screen somewhere that shows all the members
of each team, that seems fine; but the current screen isn't an
exhaustive listing, it's just the number of posts from each team. And
if you want to find out who made those posts, you can: just click on
team name and read the authorship information on each post.
...Robert
