Fwiw I disagree, I think the Review is deliberately openended.
Yes there’s a specific goal of find the top 50 posts, and to identify important timeless intellectual contributions. But, part of the whole point of the review (as I originally envisioned it) is also to help reflect in a more general sense on “what happened on LessWrong and what can we learn from it?”.
I think rather than trying to say “no, don’t reflect on particular things that don’t fit the most central use case of the Review”, it seems actively good to me to take advantage of the openended nature of it to think about less central things. We can learn timeless lessons from posts that weren’t, themselves, particularly timeless.
i.e. the question “what sort of community institutions are good to build?” is a timeless question. Why should we artificially limit our ability to reflect on that sort of thing during the Review, given that we set the Review up in an openended way that allows us to do that on the margin?
Fwiw I disagree, I think the Review is deliberately openended.
Yes there’s a specific goal of find the top 50 posts, and to identify important timeless intellectual contributions. But, part of the whole point of the review (as I originally envisioned it) is also to help reflect in a more general sense on “what happened on LessWrong and what can we learn from it?”.
I think rather than trying to say “no, don’t reflect on particular things that don’t fit the most central use case of the Review”, it seems actively good to me to take advantage of the openended nature of it to think about less central things. We can learn timeless lessons from posts that weren’t, themselves, particularly timeless.
i.e. the question “what sort of community institutions are good to build?” is a timeless question. Why should we artificially limit our ability to reflect on that sort of thing during the Review, given that we set the Review up in an openended way that allows us to do that on the margin?