On 2011/05/09 22:01, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
> Oh, great, you made us all afraid with this thread about coding and democracy...
> See how embarassed and negative the reactions were.
>
> If it's just about self punishment, then it's all right, you'll
> probably get plenty of suggestions.
<snip>
> Or maybe read the whole literature on java an C++ before daring asking
> a single stupid question about object programming.

OK, no, I couldn't wish THAT on ANYONE!

frank

> I'll let my peers finish the work.
>
> Cheers
>
> Nicolas
>
> 2011/5/9 Casey Ransberger<casey.obrien.r at gmail.com>:
>> Yes, yes, yes. It was about the worst piece of communication I've done in
>> the longest time. Here's where I screwed it up:
>> * The title was completely wrong. I even managed to totally botch a
>> statement meant to say "I'm not so sure about the whole working-group idea
>> that I heard about because it sounds exclusionary, even if it gets conflicts
>> resolved," such that someone on the list thought I was being disrespectful
>> even though I didn't even intend to disagree, much less display any
>> disrespect. Mega-oops. This was my fault.
>> * I called it a "silent majority" because my gut says there's a Pareto
>> effect going on, and probably 20% or less of us actually post. I have no
>> proof nor a count of the readers on squeak-dev. I shouldn't have made a
>> statement like that without having some numbers to attach to it. I screwed
>> up here too. Totally my fault.
>> * Completely incorrect terminology in the text of my message suggested to
>> most readers that I was trying to bureaucratize the process whenever we
>> disagree about stuff and force people to go work things they don't want
>> to... which would be totally awful, and wouldn't work, because there's no
>> way to force anyone to do anything anyway!
>> * What I heard was, the working group is something they're planning, and I
>> screwed up and used the present tense in my email. Ooops. Sorry about that,
>> all.
>> * I don't know for sure about the working group thing, that's just something
>> I heard. So it's also hearsay, I don't actually know that for certain, and
>> so I really shouldn't have brought it up. This also is my fault. I'm really,
>> really sorry.
>> I was really, frankly, fishing for a way to figure out which bloody
>> namespace implementation I should go try to make work well enough to get it
>> into the Trunk. Since I don't care that much *how* it works, I just want to
>> figure out which approach is the most popular so that I minimize the risk
>> that I'm hacking on something no one will ever use. I didn't want to imply
>> that anyone should use this information to force anyone to do anything, etc,
>> I think _that would be awful_.  But I used a very poor set of words and
>> completely failed to express myself effectively. This is *my* fault.
>> I was just looking for a way of getting information about what people in the
>> community actually wanted. I was not trying to make people vote to decide
>> anything. "Resolution of Contentious Issues" is really the worst title I
>> could have chosen. I screwed up there. In my head I pictured polling people
>> and then discussing the results of the "opinion poll" on squeak-dev, to see
>> whether or not the increased visibility into the desires of the community
>> might get people aligning a bit more on what to go do.
>> I also want to be clear that _I don't want a working group_ or _any such
>> thing_.
>> I'm looking back at what I wrote and seeing how you could even easily read
>> into it that I was bashing the Squeak community while praising the Pharo
>> community. Not my intent at all, and I didn't intend to beat up on the Pharo
>> community either -- lots of really nice people doing really cool stuff there
>> too. In the past I've avoided trying to compare the projects too much,
>> because it's one of those things you can say and get both parties thinking
>> that you've been kicking their dogs even if that isn't your intent.
>> Wow! Man this one takes the cake. It's just an epic piece of poor
>> communication on my part.
>> My sincerest apologies to everyone who has read this this thread. I was
>> really just fishing to see if people would be interested in using the voting
>> tool to do an opinion poll. It was a random passing thought that I should
>> have let bake for a few more minutes. What I honestly should have done was
>> go to bed hours before I sent that. I've been on something of a programming
>> spree for a few days -- got some time off and just went nuts with a much
>> needed creative burst -- and I may have been pushing myself a little too
>> hard. Sleep is important, sometimes I forget about that when the bits are
>> lining up and I'm in the zone :(
>> I am self-imposing detention.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>> I will read what I write before I click send.
>>   --casey
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Chris Muller<asqueaker at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to clarify, I am not against survey-style polling; in fact I am
>>> greatly interested in counting.  However, the way this was presented,
>>> as a "resolution of contentious issues," while at the same time,
>>> itself, being contentious with divisive, comparative language; that
>>> approach will not be effective to garner my support.
>>>
>>> I would only participate if I were sure the poll would not serve as a
>>> wedge to divide our community / communities.
>>>
>>> However, maybe not, because perhaps the emergent phenomena of "no
>>> consensus" should be viewed _as_ a consensus; that the proposal could
>>> not pass muster with enough of the bright minds here for action to be
>>> warranted and, therefore, the choice not do do it was and is the
>>> correct one.
>>>
>>>   - Chris
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Chris Muller<asqueaker at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>> Casey,
>>>>
>>>>> I've seen a few rounds of discussion around contentious issues.
>>>>> Namespaces
>>>>> are a fantastic example. Some of these issues, (I'll call them
>>>>> Oddballs,)
>>>>> just don't like getting resolved. The pattern is that almost everyone
>>>>> who
>>>>> speaks out has a different idea about how to #doIt. The conversation
>>>>> usually
>>>>> goes in a long circle, and then gets garbage collected when everyone
>>>>> gets
>>>>> too fatigued with the debate to continue it.
>>>>
>>>> Vigorous debate is not only normal, but essential, for a successful
>>>> software development community.
>>>>
>>>>> I often wonder what the silent majority think about Oddball issues. We
>>>>
>>>> Did the "silent majority" have a silent vote, and that's how you know
>>>> they were the "majority" of something?
>>>>
>>>>> I'm thinking of this in part after a conversation that happened at the
>>>>> first
>>>>> SSUG meeting. We talked about how we tend to argue in circles in
>>>>> squeak-dev,
>>>>
>>>> We "tend to argue in circles" in squeak-dev.  That's ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>>> while the Pharo folk set up a "working group" to make decisions about
>>>>> stuff
>>>>
>>>> They do?  I searched the Pharo list for "working group" but did not
>>>> find any announcements.  Can you tell us more?  Who are they, what did
>>>> they work on, and what was the final "solution"?
>>>>
>>>> As for Squeak, squeak-dev _is_ the working group.
>>>>
>>>>> like this, and then as a result get to make progress, even on issues
>>>>> which
>>>>
>>>> "Progress?"  That's a very subjective term..
>>>>
>>>>> are contentious in their community. I don't know if we actually need or
>>>>> want
>>>>> a "working group," whatever that is, but it would be nice to _have a
>>>>> pulse
>>>>> on the desires of the broader Squeak community._
>>>>
>>>> I would say, if the pulse isn't clear, this is the place to find it.
>>>> You can poll here, our community is small enough to be able to do that
>>>> by just reading the responses of the folks who care enough to voice
>>>> their opinion.  The "silent majority" has no voice other than their
>>>> code, which must be good enough to lure our community into change.
>>>>
>>>>> two problems a) contention, and b) no workable implementation, it would
>>>>> be
>>>>> nice to get some of the contention out of the way so that I can quit
>>>>> arguing
>>>>> on a mailing list and #doIt.
>>>>
>>>> I think you know, there's plenty to work on that requires no arguing.
>>>>   :)
>>>>
>>>>   - Chris
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Casey Ransberger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>