2009/6/30 Ian Trudel ian.trudel@gmail.com:
2009/6/29 Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com:
I agree that developers (or committers) should gain some sort of immunity from critics by anyone else, who is not committing. But making separate list will not help i think. We already have many of them.
Those who are not criticized are not working with anyone else. The moment the community cannot openly criticize Squeak is the moment Squeak becomes a dictatorship. Squeak is already living in a bubble and it's not necessary to create another one. The Squeak Oversight Board has to listen to those critics and decide what to do with them. Not every critics are meaningless... because what? The person who has submitted the critic did not contribute? I'll tell you what... to critic is to contribute. Those who choose to shut up don't do anything for Squeak.
Now, the community can rightfully expect the critic to go beyond "it's not good", "I don't like this or that" and so on. It's important to voice our opinions, ideas, etc. and, more importantly, the reasons behind them. If someone does not pour efforts into doing actual contribution, we can at least expect those to make an effort to express properly their idea. Talking is one step toward common understanding. Anyway, regardless of the critics, those who actively contribute to Squeak should have a meaningful voice.
There are different sorts of critic: - i looked at your code and your code stinks. Rewrite it here and there. - i don't like your idea. Don't ever think implementing it.
got my point?
Ian.