On 4/15/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
I'm not sure I'm following the logic here. A
handful of people
are stuck doing the majority of the work in some area, and they're
of necessity familiar with the abstruse (albeit efficient)
mechanism for doing it. But since they're the only people doing
the work, there's no point devising a more hand-holding mechanism
which would let more people participate (but which the "experts"
would presumably have no use for)? Isn't this just a little bit
circular?
No because the "more people participating" will have such a low work
rate is is not worth the loss of efficiency it would cause the admins
doing most of the work.
--
geni