December 21, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Stewart Gordon | "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:emcr5k$6b2$1@digitaldaemon.com... > What is is with you people? OK, so a few of you did start to take it seriously in the end. But still, what is all the joking about? Presentation! Tact! Have you any training in the social graces? As John mentioned in another post, had this laundry list been worded in a less inflammatory fashion, I doubt you would have received the response that you have. It's nitpicky, it's condescending, and it's really unnecessary in such a time in the language's development. Everyone's excited about 1.0, and you come along with this big needle to pop everyone's bubble. I'm not really one to hold a grudge against someone, though, as long as they don't do something extraordinarily stupid, so I'm willing to forget about this thread if you're willing to admit that maybe -- just _maybe_ -- you were a bit harsh at a really inopportune time. |
December 21, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Stewart Gordon | Stewart Gordon wrote:
> And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this product, in a sense we have. We've paid with the time spent evaluating D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.
"Nobody put a gun to yer head."
Andrei
|
December 21, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Stewart Gordon | > I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive criticism of Walter's way of operating. It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up all toadies of that organization against the attributor. If such happens more than once one should consider departing that organization ASAP and see the inevitable arrive from safe distance. I have done this a long tome ago and as Andrei Alexandrescu pointed out, that inevitable arrived already. An unwritten rule of the open source community is not to spin off unless there is no other chance. When reading something like this > create your own language empire and make your own > rules of Free Speech there from a veteran of the D language, there cannot be any doubt about the conclusion. Let's prepare to create a spin off from version 1.0 of the D language. The working title should be "drokue", because the spinoff should be a googable rogue to D. |
December 21, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Mike Parker | Mike Parker wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> What is is with you people? OK, so a few of you did start to take it
>> seriously in the end. But still, what is all the joking about?
>
> There's a thing called 'tact', something of which you are severely deficient. Over the years I've been involved with D I've seen you make several tactless posts to this group, bitching when your issues aren't fixed in a new release, pushing Walter to look again at one point or another. There's a right way and a wrong way to say things. Titling a post "Walter's annoying habits" is quite the wrong way.
>
> I suggest you fix your own annoying habits first. Learn some tact, how to be civil rather than insulting, how to make requests rather than demands. Then perhaps people will take you seriously instead of viewing you as a pompous windbag.
+1
|
December 21, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) | Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> Stewart Gordon wrote:
>> And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this product, in a sense we have. We've paid with the time spent evaluating D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions.
>
> "Nobody put a gun to yer head."
>
> Andrei
Better even, Stewart clearly made a judgmental error. He thought it would be 'C', but instead he got 'D'. And in real life, if you make errors, you have to pay.
Roel
|
December 22, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) | On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:20:22 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote: > Stewart Gordon wrote: >> And to those bringing up the statement that we haven't paid for this product, in a sense we have. We've paid with the time spent evaluating D and DMD, reporting bugs and offering suggestions. > > "Nobody put a gun to yer head." > > Andrei That statement (or quote) doesn't follow the reasoning presented. Stewart wasn't arguing about whether community members are forced to help Walter or not. He was merely countering the argument that states: Walter does this for free, therefore we have no right to question him. In truth, Walter works on dmd for free and the community contributes to Walter's work for free, therefore both entities have invested in D and both entities share interest in the outcome. Now forceful demands are another story... I don't think anyone can justify "putting the gun" to the designer's head to get him to do what they want him to do or get him to act as they expect him to act. And, even so, it's most assuredly a fact that Walter would bulk even if a gun were put to his head to make him do something he didn't want to do. ;D Now, Stewart, I don't think you caught the general drift of the topic enough to realize further comments on the subject would not likely garner more support. If you had Asperger's syndrome, I guess we'd have to forgive you for lacking a general instinct for tact, sensitivity, and general social awareness. But how is a community to respond to such persistance? What do we call that? I think even those with Asperger's would figure it out in the first round. I think most here can forgive you anyway... but man, you've got me flummoxed on this one. And no, that isn't a slam on people with Asperger's syndrome; I surely sympathize if they want my sympathy (which most claim to not want because it annoys them). But I refuse to pussyfoot around such details. Maybe I was insensitive in bringing it up in the first place? Ah man, never know until it's too late. My point is, and perhaps Stewart is a sterling example, that the majority of people on this planet can lay claim to some obscure form of chronic insensitivity syndrome for various reasons... one reason being that they sincere don't care. Stewart, I think, does care but appears to express his care by dabbing copious amounts of salt and vinegar in the fresh wound. D is going 1.0. For that I will celebrate. That Walter got it this far intact is respectable. -JJR |
December 22, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Manfred Nowak | Manfred Nowak wrote:
>> I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive
>> criticism of Walter's way of operating.
>
> It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity
> organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be
> leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up
> all toadies of that organization against the attributor.
Ionno. I might have a wrong or simplistic image of the situation, but to me things are simple: Walter is creating a product. He is motivated mainly by community building and approval. The community uses his product and provides useful feedback and suggestions for improvements. In doing so, they invest time and talent in the product to various degrees.
The question is, how much improvement comes from a specific member of the community, and what amount of entitlement should derive from that? I don't know much about the historical contributions that people have made to D, but my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Walter holds an overwhelmingly high percent of the shares. In that case, it's hard to make the case that a community member can behave as if Walter owes him something.
Andrei
|
December 22, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jarrett Billingsley | Jarrett Billingsley wrote: <snip> > As John mentioned in another post, had this laundry list been worded in a less inflammatory fashion, I doubt you would have received the response that you have. It's nitpicky, it's condescending, and it's really unnecessary in such a time in the language's development. So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put into a "less inflammatory fashion"? > Everyone's excited about 1.0, and you come along with this big needle to pop everyone's bubble. <snip> Not true. I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time for 1.0 to wait until it's ready. Stewart. |
December 22, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Stewart Gordon | "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:emgj1d$16pp$1@digitaldaemon.com... > So that I know for next time, how do you reckon my points could be put into a "less inflammatory fashion"? Tact is something that you usually just have to pick up. One thing I've noticed you do is using "us" and "we" to mean "me" and "I". "It's time to make a list of Walter's habits that continually annoy _us_." "Why won't you tell _us_ why?" It's a way of trying to make it sound like you're not alone, like more people support you than it seems. The thing is, most of the time you _are_ posting alone, and it just comes across as presumptuous. Just because these things annoy _you_, they don't necessarily annoy everyone else. What, do you expect everyone else to just jump on the Walter-bashing bandwagon? Another thing (at least on this list) is the spelling issue. (Oh, and there's that 'we' again: "Apparently never learning from the spelling corrections _we_ keep giving him.") Is this really necessary? And this gem, from bugzilla 631: --------- Walter, please learn the correct spellings of these words! Or if that's too hard, at least unlearn the incorrect spellings! (Even better, get yourself an editor with a spellchecker!) --------- Oh, wow, wow, wow. Yeah, that's a REALLY nice way to say it. Insult his intelligence and order him around! Do you honestly think that this is a good way to effect change in this language? Okay, let's keep going. You latch onto minor issues that very few other people really care about and don't let them go. opEquals returning bool vs. int? How long has _that_ one been going? You're a complete ass to newcomers who don't understand the way we do things around here. Case in point: http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=45445 (And there's that 'us' again: "Don't just tell us that something gives an error, tell _us_ _what the error is_!") That's all I can think of for now. > Not true. I for one, Bruno for another, have been pushing all this time for 1.0 to wait until it's ready. And at the same time you've posted all kinds of "when is it time to freeze features for 1.0?" messages. Walter has finally decided when he's frozen features for 1.0 -- now! -- and yet you criticize him for it. Make up your mind. |
December 23, 2006 Re: Walter's annoying habits | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) | On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:01:59 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote: > Manfred Nowak wrote: >>> I intended this to be a serious, potentially constructive >>> criticism of Walter's way of operating. >> It is a known phenomenon in organizations, especially charity >> organizations, that all attributions to persons considered to be >> leading characters of the organization will immediately bring up >> all toadies of that organization against the attributor. > > Ionno. I might have a wrong or simplistic image of the situation, but to me things are simple: Walter is creating a product. He is motivated mainly by community building and approval. The community uses his product and provides useful feedback and suggestions for improvements. In doing so, they invest time and talent in the product to various degrees. > > The question is, how much improvement comes from a specific member of the community, and what amount of entitlement should derive from that? I don't know much about the historical contributions that people have made to D, but my perception (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that Walter holds an overwhelmingly high percent of the shares. In that case, it's hard to make the case that a community member can behave as if Walter owes him something. > > > Andrei Andrei, I think you were responding to my thread, rather than Manfred's. I'm not completely sure. The context just sounded like you were answering me. :( I don't disagree with what you say here. It's just that I found your one-liner in the previous post rather cheap ("no one put a gun to yer head"), and perhaps lacking background on D community drama. Your post above elucidates your thoughts more fully, so I can appreciate that contribution better. Nonetheless, there are people here that have made copious contributions to D. Yes, Walter does own large entitlement to the work that has gone into the reference compiler and libraries, but that's mostly because he controls it and there's very little that people can do to make large contributions internally: they very likely would if they could. Most contributions, therefore, are relegated to periphery tasks or identifying bugs (fixing them is not often accepted). This has been the way Walter has preferred to run things, and for the most part people have accepted this. Although every once in awhile flair-ups occur because members get frustrated when contributions are refused, rejected, forgotten, or ignored despite the same bugs being brought up repeatedly. The reason for this is more often because Walter is already overloaded with work, and he cannot manage to review and implement all contribution. This is not to say this Walter is absolutely horridly wrong in the way he runs things... it's more about posing the question on how efficiency might be improved concerning internal workload distribution and organization. But repeatedly such suggestions have been rejected as infeasable (or simply ignored). Meanwhile, some members have indeed contributed copious amounts of time, energy, and money to external facets: dsource.org, bugzilla, gdc, and several large projects consisting of many man-hours of work. I want to point out that none of these areas constitute a small percentage of the D landscape or contribution pool. Naturally, that doesn't justify any sort of rudeness on anybody's part, but it may explain some of the concern that important members show, now and again, in how D is managed and organized from the inside: any inability of Walter's to be able to keep up with work flow engenders frustration in those that would like to help in improving administration efficiency, division of labor and such; Walter is incredibly productive despite all this... but it's very easy for community members who have stuck around the last few years not to feel frustrated with the pace when there is a perception that, organizationally at least, the whole D movement could churn out fixes faster with the right arrangement. Despite these dramas, most community members continue to cheer Walter on in good-natured fashion and continue to appreciate his incredible steadfastness and self-motivation. Supporting him remains important in one way or another. And seeing you arrive here from the C++ community publicly supporting Walter is also a good sign, I suppose. :) Anyway, Walter is back, so we can stop talking about him now. ;) All the best, JJR |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation