My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ... Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.
Cheers, Ruppert On Feb 4, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Hans Bakker wrote: > On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 19:04 -0600, Adam Heath wrote: >> Hans Bakker wrote: >>> Adam, >>> >>> please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud >>> of, in this mailing list. >> >> I never said that. I said my experience with Debian in the past has >> made me able to work better in community projects. And that if people >> think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse. >> > > You as a long time contributor should realize the intentions of David > and not react this way. There is also something called respect. Without > David you would not be programming in OFBiz. If you feel attacked try to > get tension down and not increase it even more. David in general did an > excellent job a that. > >>> I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is >>> not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new >>> people. >> >> My behaviour? Really? What about David's? Just because David >> started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat. Everyone >> can be wrong at times. > > No sorry Adam, you are reacting with far too much aggression. If you > think you are right and even if you are, you are hurting people too much > in the process. You will get that back in the future some day. > >> >> I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now. >> Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses. I am only >> saying what we as a group have agreed with. It's just that people who >> have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't >> follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I >> take exception with. >> >> New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with. >> >> Listen, everyone. Very closely. It's not hard to comprehend. I like >> things consistent. I then mention the reasons why I like things >> consistent. Others on this list have agreed. And, it just makes >> sense. Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not >> breaking functionality or builds. So, I then go and point out issues >> with consistency when they occur. Others don't point theses issues >> out, but that doesn't make them any less valid. >> >> For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful. It doesn't >> matter who you are, or how much you have done. This is part of my >> blindness thing; Leaders of the project or various lueitenants >> >> Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved >> suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't >> realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been >> discussed with others, and said others have agreed. That I will not >> accept. >> >> If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where >> a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn >> child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame >> the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch? Or, are you >> going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left >> the scene side-swiped the car? >> >> Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the >> end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause. >> This again, is wrong, period. And yet *I* get blamed for calling >> someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid. > -- > Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
