[imp] Signature

[Luis Felipe Marzagao]

Em 07/02/2013, às 16:09, Brendan Oakley escreveu:

> 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.
> 


Hello, Brendan.

Wise words.

Maybe you haven't noticed the 'forward' discussion. A big recent discussion here on the list that generated 'angry' replies as well.

The way I see it, all of this happens because there is always an ideology behind these discussions.

Michael not being able to convince people using or doing things the way he thinks is the best way (and most times it is the best, although sometimes not in the so-called 'real world' sense), makes things stressful and then we see those kinds of emails you have mentioned ('never', 'ever', 'idiotic', caps, irony etc.).

He could just say: "For me it's broken behavior and I'm not interested/not being compensated to code it". That alone, no matter how many times repeated, has the power to end any type of discussion in these matters, since he is the guy doing all the heavy work (brilliant work, by the way), while others are merely benefiting from it.

And because deciding what goes in or out the main stream code has a dictatorship nature (as he adequately put, someone has to make the decision), that's the moment when ideology comes into play. There will always be a lot of arguments either pro/con including or excluding something in/from the code.

That's why, in spite of all the arguments, In the most basic level, what really puts and end to the question, I think, it is the ideology of the person controlling the code. So, there isn't much anyone can do about it, unless, of course, you are the guy controlling the code or you code it yourself (...or pay someone to do it for you).

Having said that, I doubt your wise words will be well received, and I'm not saying that because of Michael's temper or anything, but because it's of the human nature not to gracefully receive criticizing with an open spirit. I'm 33 years old and, until now, I have never met a person who liked being criticized. It's totally normal. So I would expect an angry answer to your email or no answer at all (although I hope I'm wrong). :)

Whatever may be the case, I think your contribution was of great help. Thanks for exposing it so clearly and so objectively. I think it raises the level of the discussions.

Regards,
Luis Felipe



> Thanks
> Brendan
> -- 
> imp mailing list
> Frequently Asked Questions: http://wiki.horde.org/FAQ
> To unsubscribe, mail: imp-unsubscribe at lists.horde.org