Sorry to wake this one up again ... but your statement here really concerned me. I've
struggled on and off nearly the whole day trying to get subscribed to this list so
that my posts go through. Let's see if it works this time ...
<snip>
... when Sean comes back, I will discuss this issue with him... his actions should not
be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement of any one project over another.
</snip>
How would you manage these interpretations? How can anyone do that? All you can do is
make yourself or your company or your project as bland as possible, a white wall in a
white room, in a misguided effort to cut down on "interpretation". In the end it just
doesn't work - those who want in a certain moment to interpret will still interpret.
In fact, in my experience, they (we) will interpret more.
I personally appreciate the added color these days, the more personal access from
people working at MM. And i think a lot of other people do as well. It is true that at
times personal preferences will show through in what you guys present, but i would
MUCH MUCH rather have a chance to take a good look at the personal preferences of some
of the experienced and talented people who are working at Macromedia, than be
shielded from them in an effort to be "neutral".
If neutrality is a virtue in this regard, then Michael here on his own list should be
equally careful professing opinions and preferences (about Macromedia's use of
frameworks for instance), because his opinion of course carries more weight than
someone like me.
Likewise, Matt is the president of a software company. Matt's opinions certainly carry
more weight in the innocent blue eyes of more junior developers like myself. Why is
Montara Software or House of Fusion any different from Macromedia in this regard? They
aren't.
The way this thread presents the issue makes it look like IF Sean and his team had
decided to use the Mach-II framework because they thought it technically the best
decision, (and i'm sure they made the decision on technical merits, because no other
motive makes any sense for them at all - ie, THEY were not susceptible to being unduly
influenced by Macromedia's use of Mach-II)
...
THEN they should have hidden the fact from us. Does that help anyone? Does encouraging
a policy of hiding what you know and do because you are talented and experienced - and
therefore your reputation carries a certain added weight of validity - balance
anything? Make anything fair? Is that moral somehow?
I don't think so.
So before this thread drifts off into dreamland, i wanted to weigh in on this and say
i find the openness and personal access to and from some of the tech people at MM to
be right on track in a variety of aspects, and very helpful - good for everyone. I
wouldn't want to see a hollow "unfair influence" argument dampening that. If you
follow that argument to its conclusion, then anyone in the community that gains a
reputation of being experienced and knowledgeable should hide everything that they are
doing from the rest of us so that we are not unduly influenced. And that's just a
negative spiral for everyone involved and does not make sense at all.
Nando
>Well, in the interest of putting this thread to bed, let me try to wrap
>things up by saying that when Sean comes back, I will discuss this
>issue with him. Although I don't have a problem with Macromedia's web
>team using Mach II or Sean contributing to Mach II development, his
>actions should not be interpreted as an official Macromedia endorsement
>of any one project over another.
>
>Christian
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
