bug-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Diversity (Was: Re: FW: Error compiling ...)


From: Richard Frith-Macdonald
Subject: Re: Diversity (Was: Re: FW: Error compiling ...)
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 11:06:20 +0100

On 2005-06-22 10:02:49 +0100 Stefan Urbanek <stefan@agentfarms.net> wrote:

There are many kinds of people and they have different knowledge. Each one is
an
expert (specialist) in his own field, either by profession, education or as a hobby. In a project each knowledge and skill should be appreciated, regardless
whether it is programming, design, abstract thinking, project management,
marketing, communication, etc.

Agreed.

It is fatal mistake that only programming and development skills should be
valued to an open-source project. I have an impression that if someone does not
do programming, then he is recognised as useless for a project.

I don't get the impression there is a lot of that (some, but not a lot).

Comments like
"stop talking, implement it if you do not like how it is now" are only
higlighting the programmers elitism.

Yes, but in my experience, that sort of comment tends to be brought out as a response to an aggressive/unhelpful sounding comment ... ill humour feeds ill humour ... that's how flame wars start. I think that such comments are often just an expression of irritation with people who make negative rather than positive suggestions, rather than en expression of elitism.

It is like saying that only workers at
construction tables are important in a factory. Each position in a factory
should be valued equally as each position is important for the whole to work,
produce goods and most importantly: survive.

I think that's a poorly chosen analogy, as the 'factory' idea brings in economics and political theory. Taken literally you are suggesting a pretty pure communist viewpoint. Personally, I don't think you can reasonably quantify things that clearly ... but the conclusion 'Each position in a factory should be valued equally' plainly does not follow from the premise 'each position is important for the whole to work', so I think you will probably alienate quite a few readers with it. I would prefer to say that everyones contribution should be valued, rather than saying you must value all contributions equally.

Programmers and thinkers should go hand in hand and cooperate, not argue.

Yep.

One
party says: "you only talk, program!" and the other says: "you are too deep in your code, see around!". Noone is going to change his attitude to the project
and both approaches if taken separately are not going to produce reasonable
results. What is needed? A bit of tollerance and understandability of each
other mixed with constructive communication.

Yep.

Alex does not do lots of programming, as far as I know. On the other hand, he has great ability to see things in larger context. Also I think he is good in
seeing future consequences of certain issues being them states of project,
behaviour of classes, decisions or actions taken in the project. He is a
thinker and he points out things how they are. What is wrong with it?

Nothing ... the only criticism that's been levelled at him really is the *manner* in which he approaches emailing... Personally, I'm quite aware of several helpful comments from Alex on the mailing list, but also of many which are plainly classifiable as flame-bait.

Also, why I have the impression that some developers get offended when someone says that this or that feature is bad or this new thing should be implemented?

Well, it would be inhuman if that didn't happen to some extent ... but it doesn't happen much, and certainly not as much as in many projects.

Because they are too responsible for their parts of the project. There is
nothing wrong with the responsibility. Problem is, that they think that they
should implement the feature X or they should fix the problem Y.

Or they think that X is a bad idea and Y is the correct behavior. The mere fact that someone complains about something is no guarantee that the complaint is legitimate. A slavish instant attempt to 'correct' any issue is a terrible way to run things (as is rejecting any change). I'm somewhat conservative ... in that I don't want to make changes which might break the system, so my general principle is that if it aint broke, don't fix it.

If they have
no time, thay say, that the one who made the suggestion should implement it. If
he can not, prehaps because he is not good programmer, then he should stop
talking ang go back to his sand-box.

Actually, in the case where nobody has time, I think it's stop talking and add it to the feature requests on savannah, so that when someone does have the time it can get done (rather than forgotten).

Hey! But why do you feel too responsible?
Because you are alone for your subproject, or there are only few of you...

Conlusion? Stop the elitism of programmers. Keep others talking. People are
different. If for nothing more, then just for the record of a problem or of an idea for future developers (*). Ideas, notes and knowledge have value as well
as code.

Well, I think that's a fair point, but I don't think it's particularly relevant, as I think the main issue here was about how to make a polite and productive contribution to a debate rather than an impolite, counterproductive one.

True, David's email was probably provocative/unhelpful, but it was a *response* to a provocative/unhelpful email rather than the start of the chain of events.






reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]