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

[David Ayers]

Stefan Urbanek wrote:
> Citát David Ayers <d.ayers@inode.at>:
> 
> 
>>FWIW, I also dismissed the post as a ranting provocation.  I'm not sure
>>how many people view it as a genuine contribution.  If you wish to
>>contribute, try removing the mframe code, make sure it works on
>>'supported' platforms by posting a patch and asking people to test it.
>>
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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. Comments like
> "stop talking, implement it if you do not like how it is now" are only
> higlighting the programmers 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 do not believe "that only programming and development skills should be
valued".  Good bug reports, test cases, documentation all require hard
work.  That is not the issue here.  This is about Richard agreeing to
the workaround to fix the compilation issue and saying that the mframe
code should not be removed until someone has time to look at it upon
which Alex requested a justification for not removing it.  Removing the
code is a technical issue a developer can solve, not an idea.  The idea
that it should be removed was endorsed by Richards mail already and has
been around for a while.

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

Indeed, tolerance is the issue.  I'm sorry that I have a hard time
tolerating expressions like "BS" and "why you think we should just keep
band-aiding the problem incessantly" or trying to setup straw men.  I
hope that is understandable.  If not, then I plead guilty wrt intolerance.

> 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?

You are welcome to your opinion as Alex is to his.  Whether or not
things are as someone points out (this includes me), is a different
matter.  But how is Alex "pointing out how things are"?  The compile
issue is solved with Adam's patch which Richard agreed to.  The mframe
code is still buggy for some platforms and should be removed in the
future.  Someone will have to look at it.  All this was established
before the post.

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

The questions were directed at Richard personally:
"Can you give an actual rational..."  "I'm curious to here why you think
we should just keep band-aiding the problem incessantly..."  Would you
not consider this calling upon Richards responsibility?

> 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.

I sure don't think I am elite.  I hope neither you nor anyone else
thinks that I do.

The compile issue was solved.  The removal of the mframe code has been
stated as the ultimate goal but it was deemed unsafe at this time.  The
post requested justification for not removing it.  I'm unclear to which
ideas, notes and knowledge you are referring to.

Cheers,
David