> >>>Let me rephrase: I take exception to the adjective "inactive". It > >>>minimizes my efforts to bridge the gap between development and > >>>documentation. > >> > >>Excuse me, but I don't undestand what you mean here. > > > > I'll put it bluntly then: If I'm seen as inactive, then perhaps I should > > just live up to that reputation. > > Once again, please excuse me, but being a foreign English speaker, I am > not much proficient in allusions and politics when written in English. > Does your the 'live up' statement means that *you are not* going to be > active in the future as you are not regarded being active for the past > half year, or does that mean *you are* going to be active to get onto > the list (as Philip done so :) > It's an implication that I would cease being active. It's also the result of being in a very foul mood when it was written.
It's saying that if my contributions aren't important then what the hell am I bothering for? > The list of active authors contains authors active in the *past half > year*, not the *next half year*, so if someone is not listed there, it > does not mean he is not going to be. > I understand that. My point is that saying that I havn't been active is an insult. One I am quite pissed about. I read "Although not currently active, ..." as saying, unambiguously, that the people listed below havn't contributed lately. As saying "What little the following people have done is not worth mentioning." That's insulting to me. Looking again and seeing Wez's name on that list I should think it'd be insulting to him too (while he's not done much content, his livedocs contributions have been significant). > Just pick an example, like Hartmut, who has been in here for a damn long > time, authored quite some docs and done a tremendous amount of editing. > Yet he is not listed on the frontpage, since he has not been active > around here in the past months, and therefore does not fit into the > active role. This does not mean that his contributions have not been > valuable. In fact if he would not have been around here, the manual > would be far behind. This however does not mean that he is active. These > are two separate things. > You're telling me that inactive people should be labeled inactive. Sure enough, I agree. > The list of 'currently not that active' people was not meant to put > those to shame, but rather to value their contributions done in the > past, regardless that they are not able to contribute that much amount > of work daily done by those listed on the frontpage currently. *All* the > lists are kind of 'toplists' done by contribution *amount* currently, > since we found no way to make lists based on contribution *value*. > This will sound flippant, but what the hell, I've already done a good job of making myself sound like a petulant child... Which would you have me do: (A) Commit piccune little whitespace and spelling fixes to get my count up. (B) Stop participating entirely. (C) Commit useful updates covering changes in behavior, new features, and other things that readers actually look to the manual for. Then smile like a good girl when I'm told that I've done nothing over the past six months. Oh, and call a spade a spade.... "currently not that active" is not what's up there and you know it. > Do you think that it is a shame to be on the 'currently not active' list? > It's not a shame to be listed as someone who's done work in the past. It's a shame and an insult to have current work disregarded as meaningless.
