"While documentation of FNP has always lagged behind development as it has in-effect been a work in progress for the past few years,"
Translation: we are *always* in a work of progress, so our documentation is always going to be obsolete. " FCP has always been reasonably well specified. " Translation: The meager and obsolete documentation we do have, we'll describe as 'reasonably well specified', such as to counter all the requests for it in a more easy way then actually creating the necessary docs. "Specs do not yet exist for FCP in 0.7 because FCP in 0.7 is still under development." Translation: We don't do specs before a release, and we don't do it afterwards. This is, because first it is still under development, and (see first argument) later it's always a work in progress. So, basically, we never do it right. "How do you expect us to document FCP in 0.7 before we have even settled on the requirements for it?" Translation: We don't know what we're going to implement, and can only try it out first, and then decide what specifications we're going to use, once it's finished. *cough* If it weren't a work in progress then, that is. "Instead of moaning that "someone should do this" or "someone should do that", why not do something useful and offer to help us develop a spec?" Translation: Shut up and do it yourself. People who have criticism or point something out are whiners who we don't have to listen too, because they don't contribute anything, and are in general trolls, because they don't deliver any code. Exept when we are out of money or need testers, ofcourse, then they are welcome, but we can call them non-contributing moaning whiners afterwards anyway. "Very little happens in open source projects unless people are willing to take responsibility for getting things done themselves, rather than just asking others why it isn't happening." Translation: With a good-sounding generalisation and a long one-liner, I make the irrational assumption palatable that non-coders should create the code, so the devls themselves are absolved from any effort in making the specs more accesible for other potential devs, which would make Freenet a more popular program for third party tools/devls and ultimately for the public at large. Instead, we just say they have to do it themselves, knowing full well it's actually a coders' job, but it helps in delegating our responsability to Freenets' ordinary users, especially those who dare to criticise.
