On Thursday, 1 January 2015 at 12:55:29 UTC, Gary Willoughby
wrote:
On Wednesday, 31 December 2014 at 21:05:41 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
So, getting back to this. What do I see wrong in this thread?
It creates a clear message : you don't really want to be a D
contributor.
Once you start doing it, all privileges of doubt that belong
to "user" are lost and bunch of obligations suddenly appears.
And of all obligation worst offender written by Gary is
requirement to strongly identify oneself with a D project.
Let's get it straight : I don't want to ever be associated
with D upstream. I have never wanted to be part of Phobos
development team. Only reason I have write access is that last
time I complained about issues in pull request management
Andrei has suddenly given me write access and asked to fix it
myself. Probably my biggest mistake was agreeing to do it
instead of answering "fuck you" like Manu did.
And I find this comment by Manu absolutely outrageous:
Surely you can understand that my desire to *use* D as a tool
is not
at odds with my desire to continue to work in the fields that
I prefer
to work in?
You can hardly even imagine how angry I was when reading it
and amount of spoken swearwords that have never reached the
NG. Here I am just being told in most straightforward way "I
don't want to work on things I need because I have better
things to do so you must do those things instead as you can't
do anything better anyway".
Yes, there was an argument about long-term profit caring about
users from other fields bring. Sorry, but D community is
simply not big enough to afford such long-term investments. To
make work on Windows toolchain of any interest to me following
future assumption would need to hold true:
- it will actually help to attract new users
- at least some portion of this added user base will decide to
contribute back, directly or indirectly
- some of resulting contributions will benefit Linux ecosystem
too
- that final added value will be higher than original
investment
It will take quite a while. I appreciate feedback about what
is wrong but not _demands_ about what to work on. If kind
acceptance of any demands is considered inherent duty of
anyone it least a bit associated with D dev team I kindly ask
to remove any access from me to avoid any further confusion.
There is no way I will oblige to image written down by Gary in
this thread.
Just because you contribute to D it doesn't give you any
authority to get angry at users or:
He does not need any permission to get angry. Don't forget that he
remains civil despite being angry.
* refusing to take seriously requests for features to be
implemented/finished
Actually he does not need authority for this, because he isn't
obliged
to do this in the first place.
* trying to belittle user requests
He didn't. All he's doing is to point out that to put something
onto the agenda
of the D community, doing it yourself is the most effective way.
The only other way is to wait for someone else doing it which
might never happen at all.
* treating non-contributing users as lesser than you
He does not.
* propagating an attitude of 'contribute or gtfo'
He does not. It's totally appropriate to point out that no one is
or will be working on something someone requests. Manu's work to
promote D to his colleagues is very welcome and I am sure
everyone does acknowledge it. His feedback form doing so is
noted, some action to improve the documentation is already
underway.
This and that didn't work ootb, this was a hindrance, because
of that we're using node.js now.
---> Okay
It's this way for years now, what the fuck are you guys doing?
I won't be doing anything, but you guys have to.
---> Getting angry is totally natural.
