Please please guys, just drop this, I'm sure none of us who are having to delete all this nonsense really care.
- Andrew On Thu, 2007-02-08 at 06:56 +0800, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > Tim, Jacopo, > > Well, since you put this in the open, I guess I might as well re-examine my > previous posts. > > In Jacopo's case, it all did start out with me appreciating his help. In one > of my first posts, I > made the mistake of recalling that it was Jacopo who corrected me on the > "please use absolute path > in your diff/patches". Jacques informed us it was actually him. Incidentally, > you'll note that I > always use myself and my own mistakes to illustrate "how things should be > done". That particular > post was in a thread where David was suggesting a pre-commit review or > lamenting the lack thereof. > > Anyway, you'll see the same styles everywhere. Any to-the-point criticisms > are first directed at > myself, sometimes even almost deviating from the truth in cases where I > wasn't quite able to find > an example that qualifies myself as a target for said criticisms. At times, I > may even have > stretched the truth about myself in order to "smooth things out", and > could've been accused of > hypocrisy. For eg, I do have the tendency to admit to wrongdoing to some > extent in order to "let > the dust settle". I wouldn't state the exact audience that witnessed this > style (and the responses > to it) on this ML, but I can tell you that you can consider my tact > universally acknowledged (and > in some cases even disapproved of, because the tact gave way to ill reason > and bordered on letting > dishonesty take the final note.) Yes, my boss or bosses (future/potential > ones) are in that > audience. Part of that audience also includes Singaporean companies deciding > whether they want to > go with OFBiz. > > (And for the record, to be clearly honest for a change, things are not > looking good at all. Yes, > they're watching every message I type, so you should know I'm your biggest > proponent here. Stuck > in a difficult in-between place.) > > Back to Jacopo's case. One of the first "good rubs" with Jacopo was with the > Product Variant BOMs > help from Jacopo. In fact, about the biggest reason my current boss is still > with OFBiz is because > of his work in Manufacturing module. As I mentioned in a post to David, we're > watching Jacopo; I > recommended him to cover for me in tech support once my project is done. > After all, my boss is in > manufacturing and Jacopo has done a lot there. Despite his recent display > (we're still comparing > with his past posts way back for a more holistic assessment), I still think > he's the right candidate. > > I'm not going to ask the ML (or anybody, for that matter) to admonish him for > his behavior. He's > done a lot for OFBiz, and I'd honestly say he should take his Manufacturing > module away with him > if we're to ask him to go away. I don't want him to go away. I don't want to > be put in that > difficult position, so that's why I wouldn't want David in that position > either. Well there I go > again, that same style. :) If Jacopo goes, OFBiz will not hold enough value > for me and my bosses. > > As for really rubbing some people the wrong way, I guess it has a lot to do > with the fact that > I've weaned myself (and my bosses and future bosses) from dependence on ML > tech support (yes, it > was officially deemed a non-support channel some weeks back). And possibly > even more because I > unwittingly "damaged" the business model for some people here. I honestly > didn't know at first the > technical references for OFBiz are only sold commercially. Upon realizing it, > I had then consulted > David privately to ask if there's anything I can do (eg NOT publish my > altruistic > yet-to-be-written Engineer's Manual) if it meant righting an imbalance in > "give-and-take" > situation between OFBiz and users. David said it's Undersun that's profiting > from those > commercially sold tech references, not OFBiz. > > (I hope the dev list doesn't have paid customers, because some did complain > about the tech > references sold. I have never seen those references, and can't comment. > Would've wanted this post > to be private, but maybe I should really be perfectly honest for a change. > Bosses would fry me if > they bought those references owing to my comments or the lack thereof, so I > have to say I'm > neither arguing against nor for those references.) > > Please understand that I had no option to avoid taking apart OFBiz and > weaning my bosses from > reliance on a "difficult channel" for tech support. It was about the only way > I could keep them > from chucking OFBiz in the trash. And maybe I should be honest (but I thought > I'd mentioned this > several times) about my occupation; I'm a LEGAL reverse-engineer by trade > (not just Java > compiled/source codes). If there's an implicit ban againt reverse-engineers > in ML, please let me > know and I'll gladly oblige. This isn't my grandfather's ML. (There, same > style again.) > > I will certainly take your suggestions seriously, and heed your call for us > to "come > [cooperate/play] together". However, I do hope the ML can appreciate that I'm > caught in a > difficult in-between position, and my comments on the ML cannot deviate too > far from "honest > business sense". I'd have thought my arguments for OFBiz are all the more > potent precisely because > of my stark objectivity. And that appears to be the case (for now), since my > bosses haven't turned > away from OFBiz yet. > > I hope that this thread being on the dev list will mean it will stop here. I > wouldn't want another > "baggin on OFBiz" session (you know my stakes in OFBiz). If it does spark a > rowdy discussion, I'll > be the first to call for a stop to that. > > One important note about the ML. I have noticed it's probably hard for some > people to scan through > surrounding contexts (posts related to a post) when responding to a post. > Perhaps that's where the > problem is? > > I hope we understand each other more from this. > > Jonathon > > Tim Ruppert wrote: > > Jonathon as an innocent bystander, all I can say is that with every word > > you type you are rubbing people the wrong way. Please just take a > > moment to read thru your posts before hitting send - and think about the > > fact that there are tons of people here from different backgrounds who > > are pushing towards the same goal. > > > > I realize that your intentions are good and that you're working towards > > that same goal, but understand that if you're rubbing everyone the wrong > > way - it might not be them, but how you're choosing to phrase your > > questions, comments and concerns. > > > > All I ask is that you think about what you're saying and where you > > really want things to go and phrase things accordingly. I'm not saying > > that all responses to your digging have been phrased smoothly - but you > > can only control yourself - so let's all give it a try. > > > > This is not totally relevant, but I believe I wrote this up sometime > > around the last episode people rubbing others the wrong way on the dev > > list > > - > > http://www.nabble.com/Why's-everybody-baggin'-on-OFBiz-lately-t3081858.html > > > > Anyways, I hope you read this for what it is - a request to come > > together - and you take my suggestions seriously. Thanks for posting > > Jonathon and we look forward to more helpful things out of your in the > > future. > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > -- > > Tim Ruppert > > HotWax Media > > http://www.hotwaxmedia.com > > > > o:801.649.6594 > > f:801.649.6595 > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:27 AM, Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > > > >> Jacopo, > >> > >> No, I'm not trolling. Are you? > >> > >> If you meant the last concise post to you, it's because I know you're > >> really really busy. Just a sincere effort to cut down on "extras" in > >> my writing to you. > >> > >> If you meant my comment on David's and Si Chen's discussion, like I > >> said, you better re-read for yourself. I'd rather not repeat something > >> so often it seems like I'm rubbing a fact in or something. > >> > >> If you're still miffed for some reason, I'll say sorry again. But I > >> think we both better watch out, and stop this somewhere sometime soon. > >> Or both of us will be accused of messing up! > >> > >> As I said, all posts are cached or read or otherwise recorded or > >> witnessed by others. We should both take a step back and re-read past > >> posts in order to avoid further misunderstanding. > >> > >> My actions are plain for all to see, and so are yours. We should both > >> behave ourselves. Agree? :) > >> > >> Jonathon > >> > >> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >>> Jonathon, > >>> are you trolling? > >>> Jacopo > >>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >>>> Er, Jacopo. Maybe I moved your cheese some time, I don't know. If > >>>> so, sorry! > >>>> > >>>> Since you like conciseness, please re-read this thread between David > >>>> and Si Chen. > >>>> > >>>> As for incorrect information, re-read my previous posts. > >>>> > >>>> Jonathon > >>>> > >>>> Jacopo Cappellato wrote: > >>>>> Jonathon -- Improov wrote: > >>>>>> Si Chen, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I wasn't "saying" anything. > >>>>> > >>>>> I think that this is the problem with many of your (and with those > >>>>> of some new guys that recently are around in these lists) posts, > >>>>> Jonathon: you say nothing with too many words, and this is > >>>>> confusing, especially for new users and, in the dev list, it is > >>>>> annoying because it's difficult to concentrate and discuss on the > >>>>> development of OFBiz. > >>>>> There is no need to comment every post and in general silence is > >>>>> better than incorrect or partially correct information. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jacopo > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >> > > > -- Kind Regards Andrew Sykes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sykes Development Ltd http://www.sykesdevelopment.com
