On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:48:48PM -0500, Adam Chlipala wrote: > My general response to this thread is somewhat on the meta level. > Michael, please take this as constructive criticism, as I have no doubt > that you are acting in good faith. > > Most of your messages leave me feeling bewildered. I almost feel like > you aren't keeping up with what's going on with HCoop, and that you're > instead fitting bits and pieces of reality into a template you pulled > from 1960's hippie revolutionary movements. ;-)
My impression is that Michael is trying to solve a problem HCoop doesn't have, nor is in danger of having, at least with the curent Board structure. > There are sort of two angles to the basic complaint you're bringing up > in this thread. > > One angle is something like "the underrepresentation of non-technical > people." We don't have the resources now to provide quality services > for people not comfortable with UNIX system administration. Prices will > get much higher if we need to start doing that. I write "will" and not > "would" because I expect it to happen when we have enough members to > make it palatable. I think moving the story to the part about the cost of providing that is masking the real problem. HCoop was *never* intended for non-technical people, as everyone can read in paragaph 2 of our homepage, www.hcoop.net . I think the earlier version of this front page stated this even more explicitly. But still, all that said, we *do* have a high enough priority of making HCoop easy for non-technical audience. So, what I want to say is, even though we're not in any way structured nor have promised to deliver HCoop to non technical-people, we do want to reach that goal eventually, and Michael you are still finding something in this to criticize. It just makes no sense to me. -doc _______________________________________________ HCoop-Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.hcoop.net/listinfo/hcoop-discuss
