[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Motivation to work on Blends


On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:34:55PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> >
> > That's not my main problem.  My problem is that the information 
> > dropped in "by chance".  I was criticising a lack of announcement + 
> > discussion. I have no problems with alternatives.
> Thanks for clarifying that now: I totally missed in your previous posts 
> that lack of announcement-discussion was what you ciritcised.

  "I admit I consider it a bit strange to anounce it that way. ...
  Not to say that we had a GSoC
  last year to rewrite blends-dev and all people reading here should have
  noticed the discussion and could have suggested their wanted features.

  I'm not against "friendly competition" - but staying silent when the
  chance for cooperation is given comes quite unexpected to me."

  "Your statement sounded as if this discussion only makes sense
  if different tools exist. ...
  I admit that I remain
  perplexed if running a GSoC project with the goal to redesign a tool
  does not trigger any discussion since only an alternative tool is worth
  discussing according your point of view."

  "I'm just astonished / speachless / perlexed if people are not
  communicating their feature requests.  And I admit that the reason
  you gave that communication only happens if there is an alternative
  implementation makes me shaking my head even stronger than a simple
  lack of interest / time."

  "At least I'd regard it sensible to discuss on the list - which is
  what I intended to say."

  I keep on failing to understand what exactly was stoping you to drop a
  note here about what you are doing."

  "Could you please be so kind to enlighten the
  list about this?"

Sorry if my ways to criticise missing / ask for communication is a bit
cryptic.  If I next time will mumble something like this I'm doing this
since I was lacking information via open communication.

Kind regards



Reply to: