Respulsiveness [was: Re: Call for a meeting (IRC/Hangout)]

Xen list3 at xenhideout.nl
Mon Aug 3 11:55:37 UTC 2015


Anyway, I'm leaving.


Quoting Tim <darkxst at fastmail.fm>:

> Xen, sorry but I don't have time to read anymore of your rants, if   
> you are going to send further messages to this list, please keep them
> succinct and to the point, I really doubt anyone around here has   
> time to read your 5000+ word essays.
>
> Every community organisation on the planet had some sort of   
> hierarchy, it is nothing specific to open source projects. However   
> only in the open
> source world, do random users feel they have some sort of ownership   
> over a project because its open source. That is bullshit and only   
> poisions
> the open source world, open source gives you the freedom to fork a   
> project and do exactly what you want with that fork, it does not   
> give the
> individual end user any rights over the project, and if you want say  
>  in the direction of the project, you do so by contributing, and   
> building up
> respect within the community. We are not forcing new contributors   
> into any sort of 'mould', it is just the reality, that you can't   
> just walk
> into a project as a nobody and expect to bypass the project leaders etc.
>
> You can call me a dictator if you like, but the reality is, as   
> co-founder of Ubuntu GNOME, that does put me at the very top of the   
> hierarchy, my
> decisions carry more weight than anyone else in this community, but   
> its not about power or control, its about the project, and if I see
> something as disruptive or a bad idea, I'm not going to  just wave   
> it through.
>
> On 03/08/15 09:28, Xen wrote:
>> Hi Satyajit, thank you for your discussion.
>>
>> Quoting Satyajit Sahoo <satyajit.happy at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>>
>>>> All that user wants is for the gift to be accepted. But you usually
>>>> turn down such gifts very rapidly. You quickly say why it's a bad
>>>> idea. I think I can find numerous examples if I dig in the lists.
>>>> Charlie Moss, would perhaps of course be just one example, If I may be
>>>> so bold to include him here, seeing as that he has already left.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, basically what you are trying to say is, when someone tries to
>>> contribute, we should accept his contribution, to encourage him, right?
>>> You're right, but you are a bit biased. You don't see from the viewpoint of
>>> the project.
>>
>> That may be as it may (not seeing it from the viewpoint of the   
>> project) but I'm not really defending either side's view. I'm   
>> trying to make
>> you see that your own attitudes and actions do not help your own project.
>>
>>>
>>> What if someone comes and says, I don't like GNOME Shell, use GNOME Classic
>>> by default in Ubuntu GNOME?
>>
>> People usually don't come in with such blunt statements.
>>
>>>
>>> Well, he is right at his position, and he sees GNOME Shell as a bad thing,
>>> and wants to improve Ubuntu GNOME by getting rid of the bad thing.
>>
>> Perhaps if He had very good reasons, his task may not be to make   
>> you make another choice, but perhaps merely to make you see   
>> something you
>> didn't see before.
>>
>> People who come in with ideas don't expect them to be followed up   
>> instantly. What they are hoping for, I guess, in my case, is   
>> something much
>> more modest, but at the same time more inspiring. They hope that a   
>> certain complaint or vision is getting heard. That is really the   
>> only thing
>> that matters.
>>
>> Because once other people (the ones involved with the project) see   
>> a certain perspective that is offered to them, it really doesn't   
>> involve
>> much more pushing or pressing.
>>
>> You can't get people to do anything they are not enthusiast about   
>> anyway. That works on both sides. So when you present the idea or the
>> trouble or the issue, you only want it to be understood.
>>
>> Once it is understood, or once someome's views are seen for what   
>> they really are, there is no longer any real disagreement. Usually   
>> what
>> happens is this:
>>
>> 1. I have some good idea!
>> 2. Your idea sucks.
>> 3. But really, just look at it this way.
>> 4. No, sorry, It Can't Be Done.
>>
>> ((- I have often offered alternate views on a variety of sites and   
>> mailing lists about a variety of products. My views were often   
>> ridiculed
>> just because they were different or new or not-seen-before. If you   
>> can only stop ridiculing or short-cutting or short-stopping new,
>> ill-understood views, you would gain a whole lot, actually the   
>> entire world. -)).
>>
>>
>>> What do we do in this case? Agree with him because his motives were good,
>>> and he wanted to contribute? Of course we cannot do that. If disagreeing
>>> with him drives him away, what could we do to stop that? We cannot agree
>>> with him just for the sake of keeping him, right? If his views don't align
>>> with Ubuntu GNOME's, we cannot do much to keep him.
>>
>> It is not about disagreeing, but the way it is being done.
>>
>> Usually it is not about the what, but about the how.
>>
>> If you can make the user feel (the person) that his views have been  
>>  appreciated and understood and listened to, that user doesn't want
>> anything else.
>>
>> If you give him/her the feeling that he was wrong to offer the   
>> suggestion in the first place, then he will not return (eventually).
>>
>>
>>> You are pretty much saying "accept things as they are, work with it,
>>>> do not try to go against it, and you may get somewhere". But that's
>>>> the sort of thing you say to a new employee that you really want to
>>>> exploit. That's the sort of thing a crime boss might say to a new guy,
>>>> or some employer might say to an employee or newcomer he/she wants to
>>>> work to the max and ensure .....
>>>
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>
>> Yes, seriously. Because a person doesn't need someone else's   
>> approval to just get somewhere. A person does not need someone's   
>> "allowance" to
>> be able to be successful. Sometimes success or opportunity is seen   
>> as a gift. But it's not, you create it yourself. We have all been   
>> led to
>> believe that we must bow our heads to become something. This is   
>> typically what was being expressed here.
>>
>> "That is not how you contribute to open source, start small, build   
>> up trust and respect and then you can move onto the bigger ideas!"
>>
>> No, that doesn't work. That is a very dysfunctional way of doing   
>> things, and very very ineffective. It almost feels like some   
>> attempt at
>> hostile take-over. You integrate and infiltrate with the project   
>> until finally you can take over its course.
>>
>> The best way, in my opinion, to contribute to open source, if you   
>> will have that, is to simply take the product, see what you can   
>> change about
>> it on your own accord, and start supplying patches. You must follow  
>>  your own directive and do it for your own reasons. But that only   
>> works if
>> you are a developer. And in the position to develop, and in the   
>> position to change the product.
>>
>> You can hardly change the product called Ubuntu Gnome.
>>
>> Ubuntu Gnome is more of an idea than a single product. It is more   
>> of a community, or a thought. So to change or contribute to Ubuntu   
>> Gnome is
>> not to ask "please, what can I do?" but to simply start describing   
>> what could be better or different, or what is not currently working.
>>
>> The product is too volatile, to ever-changing, to much up to   
>> dispute, not solid enough... to really start contributing from the   
>> get go by
>> doing stuff for it.
>>
>> Sure you can make themes, or backgrounds, you can work out new   
>> schemes (perhaps software setups) and develop that and propose   
>> that. But apart
>> from that: it is a distribution. It is a tightly organized thing,   
>> effectuated by a team. Since the team controls it, if you want to   
>> have any
>> say (or sway) the only thing you can do is talk to the team. Minor   
>> things can be done, but anything bigger you need the cooperation.
>>
>> For something like Ubuntu Gnome (or Kubuntu) the sort of thing you   
>> might start doing on your own is: to write documentation (wiki), or  
>>  to make
>> videos, but if everything is so tightly organized and packaged,   
>> then you need to get involved with the team or teams or community   
>> for that also.
>>
>> And that is troublesome. The product is very much a marketing   
>> effort. You said (below) that Ubuntu Gnome is a very large project,  
>>  but I don't
>> think it is.
>>
>> Even Kubuntu (r.i.p?) is not a large project. It relies on a very   
>> small number of people. That work very very hard. It is difficult   
>> work,
>> package integration and merging and all that. There is also not a   
>> lot of point to writing Kubuntu specific documentation, for starters.
>> Kubuntu (if we were to speak of that again) doesn't add that much   
>> to KDE. So you can hardly redo the KDE documentation. Most of what   
>> users
>> need to do comes from other projects. KDE and all of the components  
>>  of a Linux system. Kubuntu has a wiki but I was never enthralled  
>> by  it.
>>
>> If you seriously wanted to, you could create a single,   
>> well-structured Ubuntu-wide documentation system with 'branches'   
>> for each of the
>> deriviates, so you don't do the same work twice. But I don't see   
>> that happening really. Ubuntu documentation itself is "not of stellar
>> quality" as someone once wrote.
>>
>> I have never read with any sense of joy the documentation of   
>> Ubuntu. I have, however, if I was allowed to mention such, had some  
>>  joy reading
>> documentation of other Linux distributions. It all depends on the   
>> scope and how many people really feel at home with the system, and   
>> are
>> willing (and able) to spend time on making it better. It is nearly   
>> impossible to join the Ubuntu Gnome or Kubuntu teams.
>>
>> The wiki(s) is badly organized. There are / is distrubtions that   
>> have excellent (DocBook) material, a real user's guide. A site that  
>>  is
>> well-made.
>>
>> By contrast, and you have to see this for what it is if you want to  
>>  understand your difficulty in getting somewhere...
>>
>> Kubuntu and Ubuntu Gnome are *ALWAYS* short of people to help them.  
>>  There is always this sense of urgency. There are ideas, but there   
>> is no
>> solidity. There is mention of having a better website, but...
>>
>> That should really be a given and not so much up for debate. It   
>> feels like you are always short on energy, short on manpower, short  
>>  on
>> everything.
>>
>> How can that be????.
>>
>>
>>>> People want to first get their idea accepted. Then they want to work
>>>> on getting it realised to some extent. Then as the process goes they
>>>> want to become a part of the community they are entering. Then they
>>>> will seek to expand that community or enterprise, or expand their own
>>>> involvement, ideas, etc. Then they will want to learn about the bigger
>>>> ecosystem. It goes in stages.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, people do want that. But you are forgetting that, we're a large
>>> project, with many members. There will be conflicting ideas. There will be
>>> ideas which won't fit with the project's goals. We cannot accept every
>>> idea, just to expand our team. What we want in the end, is a good product,
>>> to make Ubuntu GNOME better. We've to make choices to be able to do that,
>>> and yes, those choices will conflict with some people's views. There is
>>> nothing anyone can do anything about that.
>>
>> Then talk about your ideas. Discuss them. I'm not sure if you   
>> (people) are very clear on (your own) ideas either. I feel there is  
>>  not any
>> debate on this list, and attempts at debating something are quickly  
>>  turned sour. They are not welcomed. They cost time, and you feel   
>> like you
>> don't have any.
>>
>> The best location, by the way, to discuss the product itself is not  
>>  a mailing list but a real newsgroup. In any case something that  
>> could
>> happen on Google Groups.
>>
>> I have often been told that "these are SUPPORT forums" (in other   
>> words, not meant for discussion or debate). But discussion is   
>> important.
>>
>>
>>>> But what you are now wishing for, expecting, hoping or demanding that
>>>> users do, is to reverse that process. You want them to first accept
>>>> like Ubuntu Gnome as their group. You want them to recognise the
>>>> community and what they've done and what they're doing. Then once they
>>>> are "in the group" you want them to perform duties for the group. Then
>>>> finally you want them to have ideas.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I think that's logical. Acceptance should be from both sides. We've to
>>> accept the users, and users have to accept us. It doesn't work one way. We
>>> cannot just accept someone if he doesn't accept our views.
>>
>> It's like you're trying to argue with your users whether they   
>> should qualify as contributors or not. You're putting up barriers.   
>> Don't you see
>> you're not arguing with me, but with yourself???.
>>
>> Do you really WANT new   
>> developers/helpers/thinkers/doers/creators/artists, or not?
>>
>> I think you haven't really answered that question yet.
>>
>> If the answer is univocally yes, you will start to change your attitude.
>>
>>
>>
>>> And the authoritative nature of some of the groups here (I have only
>>>> witnessed the design team) doesn't help either.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't tell a coder how to code. That's why he is a coder, and not you,
>>> because he can code better than you, unless you're a coder. Why shouldn't
>>> it be the same for designers?
>>
>> You're really talking to the wrong person, because I've been coding  
>>  since I was the age of 8 or 9, and I'm 34 now.
>>
>>> Ever try telling a coder how to code, and I promise, you won't get a nice
>>> response. I'm just stating the reality.
>>
>> Only if the coder is a stuck-up prick that thinks he knows   
>> everything and can learn nothing. Just stating the reality of many   
>> coders around
>> open source.
>>
>> I see a LOT of bad software okay?
>>
>> Myself, I can't brag about much, but I've at least programmed in   
>> MSX Basic, GW Basic, QBasic, Turbo Pascal, Borland Pascal, Turbo   
>> Assembler,
>> Borland Delphi, Java, and later PHP. I went to university where I   
>> learned almost nothing, although the courses on Data Structures (in  
>>  Java)
>> were nice. I learned nothing programming wise because most things I  
>>  had already done. But I was introduced to formal OO concepts, some
>> algorithms, interface/implementation abstraction, I done a bit of   
>> C, C++, Matlab, Prolog, CaML, of course SQL, UML, and some   
>> organisational
>> modelling (DEMO, it was called) and I believe our University was   
>> high on that area, modelling data systems and doing architectural   
>> design.
>>
>> In any case I must have spent I guess about I don't know, 4x20x365   
>> = some 30.000 hours programming to date? Or at least time spent   
>> concerning
>> computers and everything that involves it.
>>
>> So I can't brag about much, but I recognise good and bad software   
>> when I see it. I also recognise good and bad architecture when I   
>> see it. I
>> was never of the quick 'n dirty type.
>>
>>>
>>> Why should anyone do work they don't want to do? Just so that YOU will
>>>> finally accept them? As part of the whole, the borg, the group?
>>>> Assimilated.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because he finds our project interesting, because he wants to contribute to
>>> something he loves. And how can he love our project if he disagrees with
>>> whatever we say?
>>
>> It's not that he disagrees whatever you say, it's more like you   
>> disagree with whatever "he" says.
>>
>> You are the ones who have a position to defend.
>>
>> You are the ones who are impervious to new ideas.
>>
>> Love goes a lot deeper than just being in agreement.
>>
>>> I'm all happy when someone new wants to contribute to the project. If he
>>> has new, interesting ideas, which improve the project, I'm all for it. But
>>> if his ideas conflict with the existing ideas, unless it's a better one, we
>>> cannot just sacrifice the existing ideas.
>>
>> That's when you get debate or discussion, or at least exploration   
>> and evaluation, but I see these things are rarely done in this list  
>>  at
>> least. You feel threatened, apparently, by new or deviating thought.
>>
>> For example, you sometimes speak of a target audience. What is the   
>> target audience of Ubuntu Gnome?
>>
>> From what I SEE happening, it is:
>>
>> - novice users who don't demand much of their computer
>> - site kiosk computers.
>>
>> But I don't see much public debate. And it is hard to voice anything.
>>
>>> Again, try being in our position once and have a good look at it. Say you
>>> had a project. There were some people who were actively involved and you
>>> all had a view of your project's direction. The next day someone new comes
>>> in. You're happy to see him, but he wants to change things, which conflict
>>> with your views. What would you do?
>>
>> It depends. If that person is only coming in to suggest that you   
>> may be on the wrong track considering where you want to go, perhaps  
>>  it would
>> be time to listen to him/her.
>>
>> Perhaps that person wants to help you to become clear on where you   
>> want to go.
>>
>> Perhaps that person wants to talk about goals rather than   
>> introducing new ones.
>>
>> Perhaps not everyone coming up with an idea is adamant on it being   
>> followed to the letter.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Ubuntu-GNOME mailing list
> Ubuntu-GNOME at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:   
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-gnome
>






More information about the Ubuntu-GNOME mailing list