2009/6/30 Ian Trudel <ian.trudel at gmail.com>:
> 2009/6/29 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at 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.
>
> --
> http://mecenia.blogspot.com/
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.