I really fail to see how this is a negative thing. If anything, it's the people not doing it that caused the whole project to fail.
I really fail to see how this is a negative thing. If anything, it's the people not doing it that caused the whole project to fail.
Measuring reach? certainly not. It was just setup as a confluence plugin by the corpit team and left as a free-for-all with no direction.
> I really fail to see how this is a negative thing
It discouraged engagement. You can argue until you're blue in the face if it should have or not.
If there's something to take away here, I imagine that it's not "internal stackoverflows are doomed to fail", and more "unstructured adoption of internal stackoverflows don't go as smoothly as one fantasizes"
Had we made some set of individuals as having been responsible for the adoption and moderation of it, it may have gone better.
“People doing a lot discourage people who don’t do anything” isn’t a very compelling narrative.
Really can’t see a problem here. I wonder what you’ll say when you find out those people are working for money.
> “People doing a lot discourage people who don’t do anything” isn’t a very compelling narrative.
Who said the people being discouraged didn't do anything? It seems like you may be reading things that aren't there.
> Really can’t see a problem here.
ok? why are you posting then?
> I wonder what you’ll say when you find out those people are working for money.
pent up anger and projection of your own, perhaps?