Just trying to not be personal - there is no attack in any message that's been sent. I was asked not to refer to people directly - so I have done that. I'll resend the message removing these words as well so that hopeful we can stop talking about "feelings" and can get directly to talking about the code that we all want to improve.
Cheers, Ruppert On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:05 AM, David E Jones wrote: > > If it has nothing to do with any person in particular, then there should be > no need to refer to a person, not even in a way that attempts to disguise the > fact that you are referring to a person like writing "Fellow Committer". When > you use those words you ARE in fact talking about a person, and even if you > don't say who it comes across as pretty clear that you are thinking of a > particular person, so it just sounds weird and confusing in a sort of > dehumanizing way. > > Isn't it possible to talk about the functionality and approach without > commenting on people? It's fine to say that Hans wrote this after so and so > wrote that and talk about the this and that and discuss what might be a > better approach, and I don't think it's necessary to comment on motives or > character or experience, whether a person is named or not. > > We're all people here, and I guess personally I'd rather be consider a person > by my given name rather than a "Fellow Committer". If I wanted to be a number > or a title, I'd be in a different line of work... > > -David > > > On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:12 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > >> Fellow committer is in direct response to being clear that it doesn't matter >> who I'm talking to - Hans, Adam, Scott, David, etc. I'm not calling out a >> person in particular - only calling out the committer who instead of giving >> us an improved ebay component has decided to give everyone both a new ebay >> component and the job of figuring out what is up with these two strangely >> named, similarly scoped components. >> >> My recommendation - even at this point - is that we start to have a >> discussion about all of the things this new component does, and the people >> who are using the old one can put all of their feature coverage on the table >> - then we can discuss how to bring them together. This may be one ebay >> component which utilizes both XML for some things and the SDK for others - >> but without knowing the feature coverage - we're screwed. >> >> In this case - it matters very little to anyone what the technology choice >> ends up being - it's all about: >> >> 1. Making it easier for everyone who downloads OFBiz to know what to do with >> eBay >> -- These multi channels sales are more and more important each day in this >> economy. >> 2. Consolidating so that next time the SDK adds something that the XML does >> not, we can make good decisions about how to achieve the new features. >> >> Let's have this conversation - the committer of the new ebay component >> should provide a quick outline of what is being supported by all the >> functions that are newly implemented. This should be easy since the >> development was just done. Then the people who developed and utilize the >> current ebay component can put the features out on the table for comparison >> as well. Once we have that, we can easily do the necessary gap analysis and >> discussion about what technologies support what, etc, etc. >> >> it could be that XML supports everything that we want and this new SDK >> becomes something that the committer needs to remove and keep in his own >> repository if there's no business reason to have it but we won't know that >> until the gap in understanding is bridged. I hope that clarifies the stance >> and the use of the words "fellow committer" - not trying to be condescending >> - just really trying to avoid the consistent "personal attack" vibe around >> here since this has nothing to do with any person in particular. >> >> Cheers, >> Ruppert >> >> On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Adam Heath wrote: >> >>> Tim Ruppert wrote: >>>> How can introducing another EBay implementation because a fellow committer >>>> is just too far down that road really ok for the rest of the project? Try >>>> explaining it to anyone trying to use the system why this was done - >>>> unfortunately we can't (don't know the original gap or what was solved by >>>> this new system) so we have basically forked the Ebay component because >>>> someone didn't want to do the proper analysis about even what they're >>>> getting with this new system. >>>> >>>> It's just unfortunate. Fellow committer - again thanks for trying to push >>>> things forward - you do that that after and we all appreciate it, but if >>>> you weren't in such a hurry sometimes, we'd have more substantive >>>> conversation that would lead to a better software product for you, your >>>> customers and the rest of the community. Instead, we've not only got a >>>> new Ebay component, but everyone also gets additional analysis to on top >>>> of trying to figure out Ebay. >>> >>> Fellow committer seems a bit condescending to me. Not trying to pick >>> a fight here(which others seem to think is all I enjoy doing), just >>> trying to help you word your responses better. If I'm wrong, then go >>> ahead and ignore me. >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
