On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 10:57:44AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[🔎] 60741048050601234015002045@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: > > It's not Steve's, or any other RM's fault if the media can't read in > > context! If a media organization wishes to post articles, they should > > only do that if they have read "official" sources, using the "real" > > English language, reporting what the sources *say* not what they think > > they say... > No, just use explicite language and dont exect anybody to be able to > understand the true meaning of your euphemisms. A deadline is a deadline, no > matter what qualifiers you add to it. There is really no difference in > saying "we will ship at x" or "we hope and plan to ship at x". These are not euphemisms, FFS. They're *projections*. A deadline may be a deadline, but the release team has *no power* to set deadlines of the form "X must be fixed by date Y". So we *don't*. What we *do* is make every effort to inform developers ASAP once we know we aren't going to be able to meet a projected schedule. I'm not going to stop informing developers about release progress and planning via d-d-a just because journalists (and apparently some of our own developers) refuse to engage their brains and read all the words that are written, instead of just the ones they want to hear. Yes, we fell way short of some of our projections. That happens sometimes, particularly in an organization built on volunteer efforts; but they were still based on the best information we had at the time, and they were still important to share with the project because releases *don't* happen without first setting goals for ourselves. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature