Release schedule plans
chicks at chicks.net
Tue Jan 11 23:10:18 UTC 2005
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Vlad Dascalu wrote:
> Christopher Hicks wrote:
>> This is sadly a common trap for intelligent folk who may not be as well
>> developed in other areas. Vlad - I'm not belittling you for repeating a
>> common human fault, but I hope to you realize that many brilliant people
>> before you have fallen into the same trap.
> I don't. I think many brilliant people managed to realise that what matters
> are the results and that getting things done by the book is sometimes not the
> ideal solution. I think that saying the right things (even if they will not
> be liked by everybody) is in the project's interests.
So if we're working on optimizing things, lets include examining the
effectiveness of your communication. You attempted to communicate with
superfulous noise and emotion and it proved to be ineffective yet you're
continuing to try to explain what really matters seemingly oblivious to
valid constructive criticism. The book isn't relevant here and I haven't
seen anybody quoting any verse yet. Saying the right things was fine,
nobody is discouraging you from saying the things that need to be said
because we disagree with you. But if its worth saying these things isn't
it worth saying them in the mildest way possible that also happens to be
the least prone to misinterpretation, confusion and the ensuing
"off-topic" discussion? You seem to be frustrated by the response your
posts received, but this could have been avoided if you were willing to
engage in moderate self-editing.
Promoting recipient editing in the Internet world is really rather
ridiculous. Which uses less energy - the sender editing things until its
worthy to be shared with the group or every recipient in the group having
the filter out the superfulous garbage added by the sender? One of IETF
credos is "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you
send" and applies rather well to human communications.
While it might not be pleasant to find that you've been shown to be rather
off base in a public way I'm confidant that noone involved did so out of
disrespect. If you weren't respected it wouldn't have been worth the
trouble to explain what you seem to be so resilient to accepting.
If you find yourself interpreting any of this as discouraging dissent,
discussion, or honesty you're missing my point.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
More information about the developers