Release schedule plans
vladd at bugzilla.org
Tue Jan 11 23:36:17 UTC 2005
Christopher Hicks wrote:
> 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
I'm not frustrated, I'm very pleased on how the evaluation thing went.
It seemed to make people re-evaluate things that took for granted,
including the communication process. The first good effects are already
> 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.
It's not about 80-20, it's about building a community tollerant to
emotion-like flames. Trimming down senders makes the network vulnerable
to the first non-compliant sender :-). Building up responses in every
receiver makes the network invulnerable :-) The important thing is to
learn how to receive a message, because in this way we'll end up
invulnerable to every sender. Learning senders how to behave is still
important, but it doesn't make the network bullet-proof to the first
> 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
Once again, try to understand that I'm not looking for respect or public
appreciation. My goal was to improve the development process and I
partially managed that. Once 2.18 is released rest assure that I'll
continue my evaluation process. That reminds me - a lot of the
discussion went in private on reviewers@, and you might miss critical
information in understanding the background of the discussion.
> If you find yourself interpreting any of this as discouraging dissent,
> discussion, or honesty you're missing my point.
You're missing my point. :-) But I guess that is fine. We're all free
and stuff after all :-)
More information about the developers