On Feb 5, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Tim Ruppert wrote: > 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.
I don't think it is necessary to resend it, the content of the message was clear enough regardless of the form you used. Jacopo > > 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. >>> >> >
