Harry portobello wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Wowzer! This is one long email, thanks Michael. A lot of the
> discussions you raise here speak for themselves so I wont reply to all
> of them.
>
> 2011/9/1 Michael Großer <michael.gros...@gmx.de>:
>> * When some people feel confused by some kind of attitude
>> in the fvwm community, then perhaps they are not patient
>> enough anyway, maybe they are not interested about the
>> difference between fvwm on one side and KDE/Gnome on the
> People will only change if they want to - and despite having this
> pointed out to him, Thomas remains silent so it is hard to know if hes
> reading this and taking it in or just ignoring it. Ive tried speaking
> with him off the list but haven't had a reply - and that was before,
> when asking about advice for this article I'm writing.
>
> Sometimes the silence speaks more words of a coward than anything, and
> that leaves me with uneasy feelings - because typically those people
> will wait until the dust has settled and then go back to their OLD
> ways of being brash, until the next time theyre challenged and they'll
> fall silent, unfortunately as in this example, seems to be the case.
Julien already stated it: You are outright insulting!
My first thought when I read your first message on 2011-08-31 at 01:17
was: "Dear me! There is someone who actually is committing profanity!"
There are two reasons why I wrote my e-mail yesterday:
1.) Some years ago I was like you, so i know exactly what do you think.
I just perceive every breeze between the lines when some people
interact with eachother. But I changed my way how I respond to
these breezes that I perceive.
2.) I think that Thomas is mentally strong enough to digest the
topic that we discuss on the list now.
Why you are insulting? Though you also are honest when you tell what
you think, but sometimes it may be better to change the mode how
to communicate. You think something (you get a stimulus) and then
you tell what you think (you respond to your stimulus). This way
is your problem. You should change into another mode. Better is,
you think something (you get a stimulus) first. Then (secondly)
you should think about how you will talk about what you thought (use
your freedom to choose: Especially use your conscience). Only then
(thirdly) talk about the result of your thoughts (you respond to
your stimulus after you thought about it). I quoted something from
the chapter "habit 1 be proactive" of the book "The 7 habits of highly
effective people" from Stephen R. Covey, because I think, that this
model fits into this discussion. (I have this book in German and
in English, and it is a must-read! It explains a lot about living
together in different situations.)
There is one thing when you address something that you notice:
If you notice a kind of matter that you noticed in a project like
the fvwm project and if you have to criticise a person who turns
out to be the most important person in the whole project, then
you HAVE to be tactful. The more important the addressed person
is the more tact you have to show, because the more important
the addressed person is, the higher is the risk that you destroy
something that even you didn't intend to destroy.
It is very important that you constantly make you aware of the
goal that you are pursuing. The first goal is NOT to address
the problem that you thing is a problem. The first goal is to
preserve and to improve the organisation within which you
address a problem that you think is a problem. When you address
a problem like this you are addressing in this list, then you
nearly always play with fire. You have great responsibility
with the actions that you do, because the matter you are playing
with nearly always threatens to blow up in your face.
When you play with a matter like that, then you HAVE to be
or to become an expert first. Or, you leave the field to
other experts with more tact.
Now, I try to respond to your statement about remaining silent,
ignoring something or being a coward.
I am to 90 percent sure that Thomas does not ignore what you
and I are writing in this thread. He just does not have to
respond to you. When you want to change something, then you
simply:
* have to be more tactful
* have to contribute something useful (something that is
considered as useful in the eyes of the community)
* have to show a lot of more patience
* have to show the community that you are serious with your
concern.
You cannot change people from today to tomorrow. As I wrote
yesterday, you have to be authentic and you have to EXPLAIN
something. It takes several weeks or months until people
really UNDERSTAND something like this. And again, you have
to be patient, patient and patient. And always be aware about
what you are doing. Remember, you are playing with fire;
you never know into which direction a spark may strike and
may ignite something that you didn't want to be ignited.
You HAVE to reckon that you may have to trample out fires
that you by yourself have ignited in your attempt to change
something like this.
When I read other responces to your initial message I received
in the meantime, then I notice that Glenn Golden is trying
to address the problem a lot more tactful than you. I think
that Glenn actually understood the fact that the goal is
to preserve and improve the community rather than addressing
a single problem (disconnected from the community). You
never can disconnect such kind of problem from the big picture.
You always have to change the big picture. Because persons
are individual, you never are able to level them, to make them
equal and replaceable. You only can change parts of persons
to trim the bad habits into an acceptable scope, and you should
nurture the good habits and the good attributes in persons
instead.
I consider the problem you are seeing as solved when I notice
that Glenn and Thomas are working together somehow.
And, if you read the messages that Thomas wrote during the last
hours, I actually noticed a change in the style he is responding
to technical enquiries. This alone is the evidence that people
are not as dumb as you may think they are. The message, that
possibly an aspect was neglected somehow, seems to have arrived
at the recipient.
Even if the recipients do not show this, mostly the message
arrives. They just don't respond to a stimulus without thinking.
Mostly, they actually think. This takes time sometimes, and you
need patience.
> Its the typically Prima Donna situation: suffer the intolerable
> because they're too valuable and let them get away with whatever they
> want to.
I think, until now, I should have written enough to show you an
alternative what you can do if an organization (whatever kind of)
is faced or seems to be faced with that kind of problem.
>> I assume there is a coherence between the product of fvwm
>> and the attitude in the fvwm community.
>>
>> * An idea that could make a difference for new people who
>> think about joining the fvwm community could be this:
>>
>> - Someone should write an introduction for newbies
>> and put this introduction onto "www.fvwm.org". This
>> introduction should:
>>
>> - EXPLAIN the difference between fvwm and other
>> environments
> So you're saying the attitudes of people working on fvwm is due to
> differences with other environments, like KDE? Interesting idea.
Give this idea a try ;-)
If you want to think about this idea, I recommend the book
"Good to Great. Why Some Companies Make the Leap And Others
Don't" from Jim Collins. I bought, read and listend to the
German version of the book and the German version of the audio
book. It is also a must-read! You will understand a lot more
phenomenons that you notice in your daily life after you read
this amazing book.
Another source that led me to my claim is this saying:
"If you do what you always did, then you will get what
you always got."
I get an entirely different result when I use fvwm than
i get when I use KDE or Gnome. There MUST be somthing
that the fvwm community did differently to achive that
kind of difference in the resulting product.
There were times when I felt comfortable working with
Gnome or KDE. Gnome used Sawfish to let the user decide
how he / she is working with a computer. Later, Gnome
threw away the best asset it had: Sawfish; replacing it
with something useless like Metacity. Look at Gnome tools
that today are shipped with Gnome: You cannot adapt
anything to your needs. Nearly nothing! THEY decide how
you have to work! You lose any bit of control about the
most important tool you work the whole day: Your own
computer! Gnome is a crippled tool. Look at KDE what it
became when the version number changed from 3 to 4!
Version 3 alone had problems that made me decide to
change to fvwm, but version 4? Hey! This is the worst
nightmare that I ever saw when I used a computer!
KDE4 made me speechless! It was so bad when I tried to
work with it, it simply took my breath away! Even the
simplest thing, shortcuts to start programs via keyboard,
didn't work! There were good approaches when Gnome/KDE
were in their youth. But, they messed it up instead of
improving it (making it better). fvwm also had it's
youth, and it matured in an entirely other way. Here
are other values. Here, it does't seem to dominate a
goal like "make the system as simple as possible, or
as nice looking as possible". Obviously, here are people
who actually look for software that is complex enough
to be able to provide a maximum of flexibility. Actually,
the flexibility seems to be more important than the
user-friendliness regarding newbies. And, this is clearly
an attitude. I think, this is one of a bunch of attitudes.
Some attitudes arise from other attitudes. I'm not sure
which attitude was the initial one that entailed other
attitudes to let develope the project "fvwm" into a direction
into that it actually developed.
Someone could identify every simple attitude in this community
and classify them into "useful" and "not so useful". Then,
someone could classify the "not so useful" class into
"changeable / want to change", "changeable / not so important
to change" and "not changeable / not possible to change". This
would have the advantage that the future development of the
whole project could be more predetermined and less accidentally.
>
>> - EXPLAIN the prevalent honest attitude in the fvwm
>> community
> But this masks the problem to some level, does it not?
It would be better if all people were diplomatic in every
project in this world. Sometimes, I ask for it, indeed.
Everybody who is working in a team should have the chance
to ask for and receive a minimum level of diplomacy.
But, the higher the level gets, the more energy some people
have to spend to be more diplomatic. Some people train it
anyway, and for them the cost of energy is still manageable
enough. But some people don't train this at a high rate,
and for untrained people, the costs of energy are high,
and this energy then is missing when it comes to the
actual technical topic. This may be the reason why some
people choose to focus on the core topic first. They want
to be good in their actual subject first. It's a question
of energy budged.
As I stated before, the problem here seems to be solved
when Glenn joins the team.
Concerning masking a problem: Imagine the business of
a beekeeper. The bees produce honey, and this is the
value. Unfortunately the bees can sting under certain
circumstances. Do you want to displant the sting from
each bee? Or do you want to rather mask the problem
by writing a direction sign that warns about the fact
that someone can be stung? Do you consider it as the
wrong solution when the beekeeper wears special clothes?
You have to strike a balance between the beekeeper
metapher and the concept of minimum level of diplomacy.
>> - EXPLAIN the priciple of EXPLAINING and GRADUALLY
>> UNDERSTANDING
>>
>> * (when two people are in a dispute, then the chance
>> to elegantly solve the dispute increases dramatically
>> when both persons try to explain and understand
>> each other)
>>
>> - invite people to apply this principle when they
>> feel confused by something
> Do you have good examples of this, Michael?
Because I have to stay tactful over the course of
years and decades, I do not make my examples public.
You seem to be observant enough to recognize such kind
of problems in your life. When there is some site where
you HAVE to intervene, then keep in mind what I mentioned
before:
- explain
- let them understand
- be tactful
- be patient
And: Think twice about it before you plan to make a case
public. This also is an easy way to destroy something that you
or someone else laboriously established. I teached you some
aspects whereat you have to pay attention to. But, you have to
create your own case studies and you have to keep them to
yourself. You can share your experiences ten or twenty years
later like I did here, by explaining the pieces of puzzle that
really matter. But keep in mind, that we, who play with the
fire, have a great amount of responsibility.
>> And now, I have a job for you, Harry Portobello. Do you
>> want to to something really useful for fvwm? Then, please:
>>
>> * Create an introduction for newbies like I described above.
> I'll try to do this but it might be a bit beyond me
>
> Perhaps we can talk away from this list? If you have the time?
I usually don't have time for this. I took my time, because
I felt I had a message that I wanted to spread. Now, I did it.
I hope, i could inspire someone with my life experiences.
I prefer (like other people too in this list) to discuss
on list. The benefit of this discussion should be a kind
of knowledge that other people could get, think about and
improve further in the best case.
>
> Harry
>
>
:-)
Michael
