Release schedule plans

Vlad Dascalu vladd at
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 
> self-editing.

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 
non-compliant sender.

> 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.

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 mailing list