Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Manners

[Tom Lord]

    > From: "Pierce T.Wetter III" <address@hidden>

    >    You're both wrong. Some features just "make sense" in a software
    > product, some don't. Browsers that don't have a local cache really
    > suck to use, so they all have them.

I wasn't advocating for browsers that don't use a local cache.   I was
talking about how best to engineer a local cache.


    > Our job as software engineers to to decide what makes sense and what
    > doesn't. Its a valid point that a general purpose cache might
    > be less useful then a domain specific cache for tla. Many tla users
    > have requested a cache, so there's obviously some desire there.

That's a far cry from the design decision that caching should be
internal to tla in a particular way.

There is no reason, for example, why an external cache can't be "tla
aware".


    > > Yes, and, oddly enough, I find myself trying to beat back such trends
    > > in arch.  How tedious.

    >   Yes, it is your job to beat back feeping creaturism.

It's worse than that because there is a wealth of features that, from
my perspective, *do* belong in or about tla core that aren't there
yet.   So it's a tedious exercise of making distinctions between the
many "features" proposed and the subset of *features* that are
desirable. 

It doesn't help when I have to keep extinguishing soap operas.   That
was part of the point of pushing for the voting system which, largely
due to resource constraints (afaict), has not been finished yet.


    >   It's also your job to listen to your users and make sure that tla has
    > the _necessary_ yet _sufficient_ set of features.

    >   It's also your job to lead the troops, and personal attacks are not
    > leadership.

I wish it were that simple.   Come sit in my chair for a while and you
might not see things quite that way.

I have and *continue* to try to push James into a more conservative
mode where his strengths can shine and his weaknesses have a chance to
heal.    The ugly public content lately is, in effect, me saying
"haven't you been paying _any_ f'ing attention to how much I've been
trying to help you?!?!?!"

    >   Tom, when one person says "you're difficult to communicate with", 
    > they're
    > a crank".

    >   When the entire world says "you're difficult to communicate with", 
    > you're
    > the crank.


Guess what.  The entire world is not against me.   Not by a long shot.



    >   Your emails would be a lot better if you had simply left off the
    > personal attack. In all things, remember that you are not your code, and
    > a suggestion is not the person. Attack the code or the suggestion, not 
    > the
    > person.

And james has continuously endangered his ability to be a positive
contributor to the project by off-channel and off-channel aggressive
attacks against me.  He could and still can stop that and come out
just fine.   As an alternative: he can (rather pointlessly) just f up
the GNU project sufficiently that we have to route around him.   His
choice.


Some stuff matters more than naive assesments of what is polite,
-t