Re: [Savannah-hackers] Lost in the (GNU) Savannah

[Shlomi Fish]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, mathieu wrote:

>
> Le lun 08 avr 2002 ? 15h05, Shlomi Fish a ?crit :
> >
> > Refer to:
> >
> > http://www.advogato.org/person/shlomif/diary.html?start=32
> >
> > for a rant I made about how Savannah treated the submission of two
> > projects I tried to make. It contains some facts, my opinion and
> > some criticism, which I believe is constructive.
>
> Personally, when I talk about other people point of view, I use
> quotation and links (to mailing-list for example).
> Mainly because my main work is to study writings, I have the strong
> conviction that texts avoiding this kind of transparency rules
> (quotation, references) is not the better way to be "constructive".
>

This is sometimes right. But obviously not always. If you wish to
summarize something, one will often find quoting its text useless. For
instance, Aristotle never said that "A is A and A is not not-A" directly.
He implied it in his own words, but at his time symbolic algebra was not
advanced enough to formulate it with this simplicity.

I can add hyperlinks and edit the text of the post any time I want, so
don't be alarmed. And remember that this is my diary - it's informal
writing and was not meant as a critique per-ce.

> As I've previously said, I speak only for myself.
> And I think you should realize that your text doesn't contain ? some
> facts ? but does contain your understanding of some facts.
>

Whatever. I do not aim for an absolutely interpretation-less bringing of
facts in my diary. That would make it boring for me and others to read.
What I do try to do is to remain as objective as possible. By objective, I
don't mean not biased, but rather not irrational in any way.

> "This started a relatively good natured argument between me and the
> Savannah Hackers. I said
>              that I was allowed to parody the GPL in my COPYING file,
> without them being concerned by
>              it. They thought it was in the project submission for some
> reason. (I'm not responsible for
>              them actually opening the package)."
>
> For example, a link to the concerned mail or a quote should permit
> anyone to understand that there no  "They" but someone in charge of
> your submission, Loic, and another one, me, reacting to a mail he
> received as member of the list address@hidden, trying to give
> you a complement of informations.
>

I will include a hyperlink. Or do you actually require a quotation too?

> So, use of quotes and references would permit anyone to make up his
> mind with a neutral understanding of the fact, not with a partial
> version of it.
> "I invested a lot of time in coding it, but was also a good human
> engineer: I answered
>              E-mails, even very trivial, politely and informatively; I
> formed a mailing list, and actively helped
>              people who reviewed the code, or wished to integrate it
> into their projects; and I actively
>              thought of what the end user would like to find there. I
> think Savannah should follow suit,
>              and actually trust their hackers for a change."
>
> Wasn't Loic's emails polite and informative ? Are you saying that
> savannah doesn't give a s... about what "user would like to find there"
> ?
>

I did not say that. You were polite and informative. However, human
engineering does not end at being polite and informative to those who ask
question. I think the GNOME Architecture is superior to KDE's, but I use
KDE since it is much more consistent, easier to use in the long run, and
integrate GNOME apps just fine. I write my GUI applets in Perl/Gtk+ or in
Perl/GNOME, but run them within KDE. Until now the KDE people have been
better human engineers than GNOME, because they made sure it affects their
code too.

Hopefully, GNOME will become better in GNOME 2.0 (and in subsequent
versions), so I may switch to use it on a regular basis. Or switch using
between the two desktops whenever I'm in the mood. (I sometimes use IceWM,
too). But my point is that human engineering transcends to your code. A
polite answer saying: "we did not implement this feature yet" is a bad
mark AFA human engineering is concerned. Why are GUI design,
Accessibility, I18N, L16N, and other human factors such big issues? That's
right - HE.

Maybe I should paraphrase my post or add what I said here to it. But what
I want to say, is that hackers want to code, rather than get caught in a
tangle of legal restrictions. I just want a web-site and a source control
repository (or just the latter). And I don't want to submit my project ten
times. I should have added, that eventually users of Freecell Solver did
not need me any longer, and could get by themselves, because they were
able to grok how to use it. I had more problems with Win32 people, ("I
double-clicked it and it opened a DOS-box but does nothing" - ;-)) but
even they could eventually get by on their own. With Savannah, it seems to
me that I'll never be able to register a project, without losing my mind.

HE in regard to Software is that the software behaves as the user expects
it to, and eventually cause him as few problems as possible, no matter how
stupidly he wishes to use it. It applies to GUI as well as command-line
programs. HE in regard to a free Internet service, is that a user can
actually take advantage of a service, without having to adjust himself to
its whims. SourceForge and BerliOS understand it. They host a large number
of inactive projects, but they'd rather do that, than hassle the users
with needless requests.

I understand you cannot afford to be so straightforward. That's perfectly
fine, but please: I gave you my word that it is PD, believe me, accept the
project, and request me to put a COPYING file there a posteriori. I would
have been glad to do so. We could have discussed the legal precautions I
should have taken, after I would have had a web-site, a project
configuration page, and a CVS repository. But I keep having to re-submit
it, and it makes me frustrated. HE is about making people as not
frustrated as possible. (without sacrificing security, or consistency or
poewr, or other important factors, of course)

I hope I made myself clearer. I will update the entry to suit this
discussion, but would rather see it become more mature.

Regards,

        Shlomi Fish




> Hum. You are free to think and write what you want.
> Is it being "a good human engineer" ? I dont know.
>
>
>
>
>

-- 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        address@hidden
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       address@hidden

He who re-invents the wheel, understands much better how a wheel works.