Re: Disputes between developers - content, draft #4
On Tue, 5 Nov 2002, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> IMHO this is much more likely to be effective if you first get a
> consensus that there is, in fact, a problem that needs to be dealt
> with. The posts in the other thread suggest you haven't got such an
> agreement.
Exactly. Point number one. Give that man a gold star. Proceed to the head
of the class. You have one 'Get out of jail free card.'
Ie, if only one or two or a small group of people are having a hard time
communicating, this does not mean the rest of the people in the larger group
are also having difficulty discussing matters at hand.
And, flammage does not mean you can't communicate.
Don't try sticking your finger in a whole to plug it up, and keep it from
leaking, when there is no hole to plug. You'll just end up creating a hole
yourself.
> I also believe the technical committee is an inappropriate organ to be
> making such a pronouncement, particularly since this is an inherently
> non-technical matter. Then again, since the tech committee best
> reflects the concept embodied in our constitution that us mere
> developers shouldn't be trusted to run the project in any way, shape,
> or manner, I'm hardly surprised.
Well, as I understand it, the ctte comes into play when the developer populace
can't reach a decision. It appears that Ian is trying to shunt this task away
from the ctte, and make everyone else do their(his) job for him.
No document can ever hope to fix or guide every person. We are humans,
different, and therefore can't be constrained by this type of document under
discussion. This is why the ctte was designed. To handle these types of
occurances.
So, I guess what I am saying, is that this document, while good in idea, is
already taken care of, by the ctte itself. We don't need this document. It's
all really just common sense, anyways.
> My recommendation: either find a consensus that this is needed, or
> propose it as a general resolution. For now, I personally don't see
> the problem as severe enough to justify such a document, and nothing
> in this discussion has convinced me in the least to change this view.
A GR is not something that should be used when other avenues are closed. It
should be used *sparingly*. I've seen way to much inclination to play the GR
card, and this saddens me as to the internal downward spirals it implies.
Reply to: