Re: dpkg-get and closed door development ...
bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
>
> You chose to reply to me on the deity list, instead of the devel list
> where I made my comments. Please keep CC:ing me the replies, since I
> don't read the deity list.
Sorry about that. If I get email from the deity list, it includes a
Reply-To header which means the reply only goes to the deity list. I
don't like list reply-tos, but that's the way it's setup. I cc'ed you
at the last minute because I figured you'd like to see the reply. 8)
Having said that, I will CC debian-devel on this one. I hope that is
appropriate. Since people haven't seen my, nor your response on
debian-devel, I have quoted quite a bit more than I would have otherwise
of your message.
> Behan Wrote:
> >
> > bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > And while it may be true that your packages are written for you, I
> > > thought that Deity was being written for users.
> >
> > All packages are written for users. It's just that users forget that
> > volunteer writers write code because it's fun. If users place too many
> > demands on the developer (i.e. by nagging them), it is no longer fun.
> > Ultimately all free programming is done for the satisfaction of the
> > developper, not their users.
>
> True, but...
>
> If I decide to actually sit down and finish one of my pet projects (a
> low bandwidth NNTP-based news reader in perl), and package it for
> Debian, I ultimately wrote it for me. I'm writing it because I saw too
> many other newsreaders (tin, GNUS, trn, nn, pine, etc) suck down the
> entire active file before they started doing anything -- and at
> 28.8Kbps, that takes a long time. I would be turning it over to the
> user community because I think that they could also benefit from the
> problems I see and am trying to fix. But ultimately, I'm writing the
> program because -I- have a problem I want solved. Yes, it is being
> written for users, but I am the primary user I care about.
To paraphrase, you saw a problem that you felt you could fix. You are
doing it for yourself, but want to share your work with others.
That sounds fairly typical of free software development.
> However, the "problem" I thought deity was being written to solve was
> in part the perception that Debian has among novice users caused by
> dselect. As much as deity solves some techincal problems (mainly,
> IMHO, some of the pesky dependancy-ordering problems), it is in large
> part a "face-lift" -- faster, sleeker, prettier, better organised, but
> still basically doing the same job as dselect. Deity, more than my
> newsreader-in-development, is aimed at problems perceived in the user
> community, not at problems perceived by the developers of Deity.
No offense, but this is the precise problem we are having. No, deity is
not being written for the reasons you state.
Just like your pet project, we saw a problem that we felt we could fix.
We are doing this for ourselves, but want to share our work. There are
no differences in why we work on Deity or you work on your pet project.
I think it is extremely unfair of you (and others) to think this project
is any different from any other Free software project. We are doing
this because we want to, and because we find it fun. If it is no longer
fun, it will be much more difficult to be motivated to work on the
project. That is human nature.
If you think we are somehow obligated to do work for Debian, then we
better start talking salary here. 8) If somebody is going to tell me
how to spend my free time, then I'm no longer working for my own
satisfaction anymore.
> (Please don't take my above description of Deity (especially as a
> "face-lift") as a negative criticism. I personally am looking forward
> to using a tool with better package source handling features, better
> maintenance of dependencies, faster operation, prettier interface,
> etc. The cosmetic problems in dselect that I believed had spawned the
> deity project are not small ones, and I support the development of
> deity.)
Thank you. I'm sure the Deity team (in particular Jason) like hearing
this sort of positive statement about the project.
> > As long as users don't get demanding (i.e. expect the developper to be
> > at their beck and call) and treat them with a bit of respect, I've found
> > almost any developper will respond very well to their suggestions.
> >
> > The best way for things like this to work in my experience is for
> > developpers to ask for ideas/advice, and then when people give it, don't
> > expect the developper to necessarily take it. It was afterall, only
> > advice. The project is still the developper's.
>
> Agreed. And sometimes the best way to get ideas and advice is to
> present something the users don't like, and listen to their reaction.
> Personally, I thought that was what Bruce was doing with "trove".
Yes, Bruce did ask for people's ideas. But then things got out of hand,
it became a huge brain-storming session with no real direction nor
rules, and much time was spent proposing names (some appropriate, some
not), and arguing about whether the name should be changed.
> However, there is a fine line between advice and criticism (which is
> welcomed) and nagging (which is not). Unfortunately, that line tends
> to be drawn by the listener, not by the speaker.
That isn't technically true. In communication there is always a sender
and a receiver. Both are equally responsible for what is understood.
By carefully choosing what is said the speaker can dramatically affect
what the listener hears. (That's what I get from being engaged to a
"Culture and Communications" student. And she thinks she isn't rubbing
off on me. 8) )
Just from my own experience, I can think of numerous situations where
somebody (in my opinion) took what I said the wrong way. However,
thinking about it later, I could see why they took it the way they did
because of the way I said it (e.g., the words I had chosen, the tone of
voice I had used, perhaps I was thinking about something else at the
time, etc). I know that as a sender I was equally responsible for the
miscommunication as was the listener.
> > > What really gets to me is the stirrings of hypocricy I'm seeing.
> > > While Bruce is out claiming open source software is good, while the
> > > developers have stood behind the DSFG, and everyone is publically
> > > endorsing the "Cathedral and Bazarre" article by Eric Raymond, behind
> > > the scenes we have prominant, well-respected developers threatening to
> > > abandon the bazarre and head into the cathedral.
> >
> > No offense, but it is demanding views like the ones you are portraying
> > that are pushing people to do this. If everyone just backed off I think
> > everything would get a lot better. It is a catch-22 situation.
>
> I'm confused. What "demanding views" are you refering to? I don't
> remember portaying any.
I referring to the rather loud confrontaion you seemed to have had with
Manoj.
My point is that there seems to be too much pushing, and not enough
helping. People should stop criticizing and start asking themselves how
they can help. If people don't want help, back off. Offer it again
later.
> > When
> > the bazarre becomes to demanding or sometimes even insulting, then
> > anyone would withdraw from that model. That's human nature.
> >
> > I find it incredible that people expect other people to remain open even
> > when they are being attacked. Sheesh.
>
> I may have missed something, but as far as I know, the first post in
> this particular incarnation of this thread (the one to which Manoj was
> directly responding to) was the most attacking message from the "we
> don't like 'deity'" camp. However, I found the responses of Manoj and
> Guy to be irrelevant to the naming issue, and rather insulting to the
> community of non-developing users (myself included).
You have to understand that this has been building. This is not an
isolated incident. We are getting to the straw that broke the camel's
back. Everyone (on both sides) just needs to chill out.
Typically it's a bad time of year for that. I don't know why, but I've
always found people to be the most high strung at this time of year.
Must be cabin fever as we march towards Springtime. 8)
> I don't expect other people to remain open even when they are
> attacked. I think this issue has gotten out of hand, and I think it
> threatens more than just the name of a particular software package. I
> think it reflects some underlying attitudes I don't particularly like.
>
> When I first got involved with Debian (around the time of the release
> of 1.1), it seemed like there were about 1000 silent users, 200 active
> users, and 50 developers. Now we have about 200 developers, and a
> much larger number of users of both types. I was amazed to hear that
> SPI has received $10,000 in donations from CD sales. That's 2,000
> copies of the CD's out there, not counting the ones bought by people
> who didn't chip in the extra $5.00 donation. Was Debian better
> before? Do we really want to return to the small number of vocal
> people?
I don't think people are saying that. I think people are frustrated
that the level of contribution seems to have decreased. I think the
developpers just want a little respect. Instead of telling developpers
what to do, it would be nice to see people doing things themselves.
Personally I can't believe the number of posts I've read saying:
"You should add this program to Debian"
"Why isn't this version of this software in Debian yet?"
or "When is this bug going to be fixed"
In the past people have just sat down and done things instead of
expecting others to do it for them.
> > > For what it's worth, the discussion to change the name wasn't brought
> > > forth by a user, but by Bruce Perens, who, when shoved, cited Ian
> > > Murdock as another person concerned by it. Neither of whom deserve
> > > the level of contempt that is implied by you comments above. But I
> > > don't expect that to matter, since Bruce got attacked with "what have
> > > you done for us lately?", instead of respected.
> >
> > Please reread the thread. Bruce did not get attacked out of the blue
> > like you are implying. He pushed the Deity team too hard by imposing
> > his own views. And people responded to that pushing. Yes, the Deity
> > team pushed back, but we didn't start the pushing match.
>
> If I remember, Bruce started by announcing the name "trove". People
> responded with -lots- of suggestions, you posted some guidelines for
> suggestions, and a general brainstorming session happened. At that
> point, I saw no problem... Some people asked what was wrong with
> "deity", and Bruce explained that the use of the term might be
> offensive, and some discussion, not flaes, of that occured.
I responded with guidelines because the torrent of names people were
posting to the lists were largely inappropriate. The brain-storming had
been going on for a week before I proposed those guide-lines.
The problem is that most people in the Deity project like the "Deity"
name (or at least don't not like it). We were effectively pushed to
change it asap for reasons some people didn't agree with.
I'm sure there were many aspects to that particular situation you didn't
see because it was either on the deity list or in private email. I can
guarantee what happened didn't just happen. There were grounds for it.
> Then Bruce noticed that a lot of the names were coming from users, not
> from developers, and tried to guilt people into developing packages.
> He commented that "no one" had read the design documents for deity on
> the deity web site, and suggested that there was something wrong with
> everyone having a comment on the name, but no one caring about the
> design enough to contribute to -that- work. This alienated the
> members of the Deity team, who didn't like to be called "no one", and
> things really started to go down hill from there.
>
> It was shortly after this that Manoj started going from neutrality
> about the name to the pro-Deity camp, in reaction to the process more
> than the other choices.
>
> Am I remembering correctly, or will I have to check the archives? If
> I have to check the archives, I'll have to wait until next week. I'm
> home for spring break, and my net access currently sucks.
That is your impression of what happened. My perception of what
happened is very different.
> > > > ps: not that I have contributed much to deity; but I do contribute to
> > > > Debian.
> > >
> > > Then by your own logic, you should have as much say in Deity as I have
> > > in kernel-package.
> >
> > Except for the fact that he is on the Deity team, which guarantees him a
> > say in Deity's name in my book. We've asked for input from the user
> > community, but that does not imply that there is a vote on the name.
> > The Deity team will ultimately choose the new name.
>
> It wasn't clear that he is on the Deity team, and his ps implied that
> he wasn't.
Manoj (like myself) has a considerable number of other things going on,
and can't always participate in the Deity team. I suspect that is why
it sometimes seems like he doesn't consider himself part of the team. I
know I think of him as part of the team.
> I should have realised that he was on the Deity team, I seem to
> remember his name as the author of one of those design documents that
> "no one" has read.
>
> To whom should I direct my comments about those documents? Most of my
> comments are about the documents themselves, and not so much about the
> design itself. I found them hard to follow and not tied together. I
> didn't have a framework I could start with to say "this is what Deity
> is, and these are the way the pieces fit together", so I was unable to
> get a gestalt of Deity to let the documents fill the details in for.
I'm afraid that the documentation is fairly sparse. That is another
signature of a free software project. 8)
I would address your comments about the documentation to the deity
mailing list.
Thanks,
Behan
--
Behan Webster mailto:behanw@verisim.com
+1-613-224-7547 http://www.verisim.com/
--
E-mail the word "unsubscribe" to deity-request@lists.debian.org
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST. Trouble? E-mail to listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: