Kohei Yoshida wrote: > Sure, I'm all for keeping track of new features. But I'm against using > a means of public humiliation to make us comply with that requirement.
I think you just have a bad day. Sit back, relax and understand that Bernd's mail just was a friendly reminder to what he thinks is the process that was agreed upon. Don't make it bigger as it is. Don't get upset by a friendly reminder. > I believe in entrusting the developers to do the right thing, and if one > of the developers overlook that requirement (maybe he/she was being > swamped with tasks, the feature is not yet complete, etc), you can > always ask that developer privately. There is usually an explanation > for that. Yes, there's always an explanation. But usually people relying on a process aren't interested in these explanations, they only want to make it work. The most probable reason for the "lost features" is that people not even know the process Bernd is using to collect them so posting an explanation for them (that can be seen as a reminder for others) is a very appropriate means IMHO. Whether the process is the best one or not is not relevant here - I already posted my reservations against it. > Of course, I don't know the culture inside Hamburg, so things may be > different on your end. But I'm just speaking for myself. As you are so picky with what other post on a public mailing list you should perhaps think about your own sentence. I can't see a "humiliation" in what Bernd wrote. He didn't point in any particular direction and IMHO his wording was quite polite. I must say that both is not true for your own post. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
