Re: Ideas about a GR to fix the DAM
2007/11/20, Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
> No, I _am_ really happy that you can't write something in PL/I and force me
> to use it. Trust me on this.
Well, I trust you on this. ;-) (BTW, PL/I is not bad - it was my first
language and had some nice features.) What is wrong is the assumption
that there is any sense in expecting a group of people following the
prefered programming language of a single person to replace a tool that
has the single drawback to not fit the preference of this person. So if
I not even can force you as a single person to use my prefered programming
language how can you think that another person could force other free
software developers to do so?
> We might be able to form a group and create a tool with such properties,
> but it will take time. It takes longer if people sit around complaining
> about how it's someone else's responsibility to take the initiative. It
> isn't as good if you refuse to take the opinions and concerns of
> experienced and knowledgable people into acount.
Here we go again: Isn't this the canonical hen - egg - problem of Debian
> I'm a pretty experienced programmer, and personally I value my own
> opinion of whether a rewrite is worthwhile or not over someone who's
> more normal merely because they're a less experienced programmer.
> You don't solve social problems by refusing to make reasonable compromises.
> Having the software be written in a way that's comprehensible and able to
> be modified to suit the needs of the people who are going to use it seems
> emminently reasonable to me.
Well, people sounds like plural to me. Wasn't you arguing to rewrite
something to fit a single persons preference? This and only this is
my point. Other people anounced to accept the existing tool in the
language it was written in.
> I suspect you can get a hint from:
Well, communication is not about fetching hints but stating clearly
what is going on.
> > The
> > continuos discussion shows that a status report every second year might
> Status reports like, say:
Yes, these reports are fine and we are happy about them. Unfortunately
they do not cover the topic of turning single person tasks into team tasks
and this is what we are talking about here. (Or did I missed something?)
> Does that make the deduction more understandable?
Thanks for the clarification. Even if I'm not happy with this situation
I probably have to accept it for the moment.