[imp] Signature

[Brendan Oakley]

Hi Michael,

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
> Quoting Brendan Oakley <gentux2 at gmail.com>:
>
> You are pointing fingers.  I will instead take the approach of opening a
> dialogue.
>

Yes, this response, in many respects, is a good example of a
thoughtful one. I like the links you provided to actual information to
support what you are saying, in contrast with oblique references to
past conversations the reader obviously does not know about and
suggestions to search for something that cannot be found.

I am not interested in arguing about reply behavior or signatures or
anything for that matter. I would simply point out the use of phrases
like "never ever," "no more discussion," even resorting to all caps.
The fact that a significant number would "voice displeasure," or more
precisely, report on practical problems with deployment, usage
difficulties, or social consequences, is reason to consider
accommodation.

> Please don't confuse your dissatisfaction in the result with the idea that
> the idea hasn't been discussed in detail. That's insulting to the many
> active and bright participants on these lists.

This is the second time you have attributed feelings to me which I
have not expressed and do not have. I have not even given an opinion
on these questions. My point is about the approach and tenor of
responses on this list. I am not insulting. I am being as respectful
about this as I possibly can. It would not be constructive for me to
tell you exactly what you should do. I am only trying to gently
inspire a little self-examination on this matter.

> But you are right that in the end it is going to look like a dictatorship
> because *someone* has to make a decision and, more importantly, actually
> code it.  And keep in mind: I can think of very few open source projects
> where somebody, if not getting paid for the particular feature, is going to
> code something in their own time if they don't agree with it.

That is entirely fair. I would just make the observation that you
clearly want your work to be as excellent and correct as possible,
which is laudable. Considering feedback from the "real world"
deployments is only another source of refinement in the process of
achieving that end. It is not an affront, or even necessarily giving
you more work to do. It is arguably in some cases less work to make
something an option than to spend time explaining why it must be a
certain way.

People are not always going to make as good a logical case for
something that you do, maybe never do. But the "real world"
consequences they experience are a decent measure for whether a design
decision is better or worse. That is not an opinion they hold about
you or your work, it is just what happens when it goes live. In the
end, that is where it all counts. Sometimes that means having to
re-think the theory.

I say all of this in the interest of respect, professionalism, and
goodwill. Like you, I have other things to do with my time. I see in
Horde a great potential to help me achieve what I am trying to do in
my operation, because of its design and capabilities. However this
pattern I am seeing on this list is of great concern to me. I would
prefer not to drop usage of Horde over it. That is why I am
respectfully raising it. Please do not take it as an insult. It is in
the interest of the Horde project to pay attention to these sorts of
details.

Thanks
Brendan