[IAEP] [Sugar-devel] [SoaS] The Future of Sugar on a Stick
martin at martindengler.com
Thu Sep 24 12:25:59 EDT 2009
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 12:07:05PM -0400, metamel wrote:
> > All I see is a lot of unproductive reinforcement of 4. "let's talk a
> > lot about tangential stuff to the detriment of letting SLOBs get on
> > with answering the original question[1,2]".
> Patches welcome.
You're replying to one. It seems to have failed to apply to your
repo. I'm submitting to mainline, though, and perhaps you can explain
how your repo differs to mainline, or mine? Or you'd like me to
understand this and submit a patch to your repo as well?
Does this terminology help this conversation?
> [What are you doing about what you're complaining about? - was "Patches welcome"]
If you mean "what's your contribution?", it's a) some soas commits,
and b) the question that Sebastien asked, which hasn't been answered.
By repeatedly asking a pertinent question of the body with standing, I
hope to get an answer. But you seem to take my reply out of context:
I'm replying to David, where he tried to summarise the progress from
the question by pointing out lots of things - things that were not
part of answering the question. I pointed this out. What's the
> Process and product are both important; the former builds our capacity
> to get on with making the latter. Think of those sections of this
> thread as a review request for a decisionmaking protocol. Rather than
> generalizing "I don't need this" to "nobody needs this," step back and
> think about why *somebody* (in this case, multiple somebodies) thought
> we needed something like it. What are they trying to accomplish?
> I highly doubt anyone here has the goal of "talking a lot about
> tangential stuff"
No, but perhaps until it's pointed out that the conversation has
degenerated into a tanget people will at least be motivated to change
the subject at message #100-ish, so that those interested in the
original question don't have to read tangents that can't be bothered
to put a relevant subject. Or, if people _think_ they're still on
topic, but the topic starters don't, then I think it's useful to point
out this disconnect.
> transparency and consensus are things we want to have; the price for
> it is occasionally hitting frustrating overhead. It is a tradeoff.
Fair enough. You may consider my reply as trying to improve the
process next time by pointing out when the process - getting an answer
and enjoying the journey to the answer - is no longer being served.
> Over and out,
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.sugarlabs.org/archive/iaep/attachments/20090924/3a34ed5a/attachment.pgp
More information about the IAEP