On Thu, Feb 12, 2004 at 04:08:23AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
> > No, that's the time for other people to offer assistance you can use. If
> Perfectly usable assistance was offered. If some (unarguably) bonehead
> came along, wanted to take over a jobs and got rejected no big
> argument would have arisen. That was not the case.
The people who get to decided whether the help is useful or not are the
ones doing the job, not the ones offering the help. There are plenty of
ways of demonstrating that an idea that's been rejected is a good one
in a way that'll convince the existing delegates to change their minds;
ranting on the lists and invoking the DPL is rarely one of them.
> Blocking perfectly useable assistance for ones own ego or because the
> other person has a curved nose or something and not for reasons with
> any foundation is part of the problem (exagerated to wake you up).
Well, it's a good thing that's not what's happening then, isn't it?
> Complaining about it is the only way something can be changed short of
> forking your own project.
*shrug* My experience differs, and given it includes getting a bunch
of things done that, eg, Ryan and James have objected to in the past,
I think that counts for something.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we could.
http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature