A new critical blog discussing Seaside
Locked
12
12
Re: A new critical blog discussing Seaside
 
|
2009/4/18 Keith Hodges <[hidden email]>:
> Sebastian Sastre wrote: >> It will be easier for your ideas to be listened if put more effort in taking >> away bad emotions. Enphasis with a bit of drama could be ok to illustrate but >> nobody will have time to deal with your anger. Some things you wrote there do >> have sense so just manage to comunicate that in a positive way and see what >> happens. I don't mean less negative I mean positive. Otherwise you'll just help >> polluting the seaside ecosystem instead of making a better place. In short: >> after reading that I feel you are with focus in war instead of focusing in >> progress. >> And you did it annonymously, which leaves your ideas in a weaker position. What >> did you pretend with that? to create the annonymous seaside critic comunity? >> leaded by whom? >> don't misundertand me: I consider good critics as precious >> sebastian >> >> > One of my fields of interest is emotional abuse. > > When a person who points out a problem raises an issue, if the response > is to say that "the problem is theirs, that they have a problem", this > is abusive. So Lukas, calling him a "troll", is actually abusive. If you > want references to this principle I can provide them. > > Mr Cucumber is raising issues. We need to identify the actual issues and > see if they need addressing. Turning around and shooting the messenger > is frequently used as the first line of defence so as not to actually > engage with any of the issues raised. > > Secondly anger is a truth based emotion, it carries a valuable message, > unlike lie based emotions. Personally I dont see much anger in his blog, > I see honesty as expressed from his perception. In fact there is far > less anger expressed here than I would expect. I know I have been there, > and I am sorry to say that I agreed with most of the points raised, with > a couple of reservations. > > I have had little or no contact with the 2.9 team, so I suspect/hope > that some of his criticisms may be over a year out of date. > > Secondly I have come to the concusion that some of what might be > interpreted as arrogance is cultural. For example when handing out food > to the homeless, I always found that some foreigners would snatch the > food and scoff it without a word of a thank you. This to a conservative > English lad at the time was extremely rude. However a number of years > later I learned that for some cultures, the "thank you" IS the eagerness > to eat what is given. > > It appears to me that Lukas, Phillippe and others, put defending the > code base first, rather than engaging with the person. This is the > cultural distinction, engineering vs human relations. These are two > separate fields, it is when they mix that we get problems. For human > relations we need a framework for harnessing peoples ideas and > contributions somewhere for them to go, some communication and assurance > that their work however small or incomplete is considered valuable. We > need some form of buffer between the enthusiasm of contributors and the > code base. By establishing their bar of engineering excellence over the > code base, this is then mistaken for arrogance in the the human > relations field. Any contribution that cannot be expressed as a perfect > code contribution that applies to the existing code base is summarily > dismissed without comment. The result being that the enthusiam of > potential contributors is turned to exactly the opposite. > > This is a valid issue which I am grateful to Mr Cucumber for raising, > because it happens to me frequently and as a result I made a conscious > decision not to bother even considering contributing back to the seaside > core again. For the same reason I will not contribute to Pharo, and I > think at least three times before I make any commit to Pier/Magritte. > > For example, I have written a library which extends Magritte to support > Scriptaculous, so that fields may dynamically depend upon each other. So > my Magritte-Scriptaculous library has been sitting there for a long > time. I do wonder whether Lukas has ever looked at it, I know for > certain he has never contributed towards it. I have no idea of the value > of my contribution, I have no idea whether anyone is using it, and get > very little feedback as to whether it is any good or not. In short there > is no suggestion or clue available as to whether this contribution of my > time and effort is actually valuable to the community or not. It sits in > a contributions void, and gives no signals that would encourage me to > make further contributions. If at some point Lukas decides that he wants > dynamic support added to Magritte, I now fully expect him to write his > own, without even referring to mine. Is that arrogance? I don't know any > more, I have raised this issue ad infinitum on the Pharo list, and they > don't seem to think so. > > If you make a contribution to Beach any contribution, I dont care how > small, how badly coded, how lacking in tests it is. I view your input as > valuable, and I welcome you to the team. I will join you in making your > work something of worth to the Beach community. I believe that there is > another way. > > Keith > > p.s. The issue of his being anonymous is also irrelevant to any actual > issues raised. There are many very good reasons for remaining anonymous > on the internet. When I find emails I have written dating back 15 years, > it makes me wish I was a bit more anonymous myself. > > Keith, you have some valid points and i think Seaside team should look for the ways how to fix them. But Mr.Cucumber style of expressing his point in few words can be expressed like: "you are an idiots and i will tell you why". Will you continue to listen for a man's arguments, when he saying like that? If you do, then you automatically consider yourself an idiot. Right? > > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: A new critical blog discussing Seaside
|
|
In reply to this post by TheSmalltalkBlog
Mr. Cucumber,
You present yourself as someone who values logic and ideas over everything else. As such, I would like you to consider the following. A person has a finite amount of time to think about stuff. On average it's about 75-80 years. Since no single person knows everything, they will have to filter which ideas they choose to think about. There are a number of different algorithms that could be used for this idea filter. Random selection, fifo, lifo, etc. Attempting to reduce waste (time spent thinking about worthless ideas), most people have settled on what I'll call a credibility filter. A credibility filter works by setting a credibility threshold, assigning people a credibility value, and then filtering out any ideas that come from a source that does not meet the credibility threshold. For example, if someone tells me that computers should receive a bath every week. I will assign them a low credibility value, stop listening to them, and begin thinking about something else. Often times people will assign complete strangers a credibility value below their credibility threshold. They will only listen to ideas if the stranger has a university degree or some other indicator that person values. Other people are more generous and will assign complete strangers a credibility value above their threshold. This is great. These people will think about your idea, until you display that you are no longer credible. In general you lose credibility by making statements the other person thinks are false. After enough of these false statements you will eventually fall below that person's threshold and they will ignore anything else you have to say. I've been following the seaside mailing list for a few months. I read every post from the past year. I watch people ask questions or post ideas and see prompt responses from people like Lukas Renggli, Stephane Ducasse, Randal Schwartz, Phillipe Marschall, and countless others. In fact, I ask a rather uninformed question and get a response from Philippe within a day. Phillipe 's act was very selfless. He received no compensation from using his time to answer my question. Naturally, I view these people as kind and generous. Now I see your post. I start you off above my credibility threshold. You seem think seaside has some implementation issues. Don't know enough about seaside's implementation to disagree with you. Still listening. You think Lukas Renggli doesn't listen to people and immediately dismisses them. Hmm. That's strange I've observed completely the opposite. You lose credibility points. You think Avi Bryant is not open minded. Hmm. That's strange. I've seen Avi speak at multiple ruby conferences and he was very open minded and receptive to ideas that were presented from the audience. Now you've dropped below my threshold. I'm no longer listening. You don't appear to know what you are talking about so thinking about what you have to say is likely a waste of my time. If you really want your technical ideas to be considered by people. I strongly suggest that you just post your technical ideas on the mailing list and your blog. Because your ideas related to the open mindness of Avi and Lukas are flat wrong and damage your credibility in the same manner that claiming smalltalk would be a better language if it didn't have blocks or that computers need a bath every week. To summarize: 1) People don't have unlimited amount of time 2) It is logical and pragmatic to filter idea sources by credibility 3) Your claims about Lukas and Avi make you look like a fucking idiot Michael Niessner On Apr 17, 2009, at 2:30 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > I would like to point the members of this mailing list to my new > blog on Seaside and Smalltalk: http://thesmalltalkblog.blogspot.com > > The background is in: > 1) the complete absence of documentation in the Seaside library > 2) the many violations of proper Smalltalk encapsulation > 3) the frequent lack of "good Smalltalk" programing style > 4) the many wrong and misleading class names, method names and > instance variable names > 5) the extreme ignorance that I had to encounter when offering my > assistance to improve Seaside to Lukas Renggli. > > I invite everybody to build a little community to document and > improve Seaside, which will save all of us and all future users a > lot of time. > > There is never ever any excuse for not documentation code! Even in > Smalltalk! > > I also invite other critical writers to join in to publishing > concrete engineering proposals on my blog in order to improve Seaside. > > > -- > Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit > allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: A new critical blog discussing Seaside - This chicken run here
|
|
Guten Tag Michael,
you have spent an admirable amount of work on clearly showing me the human aspects of this situation and I essentially agree with you regarding these human aspects. But this whole story has a history where I made other experiences and I'm not going to disclose this background. I didn't do this out of the blue. I thought I had already made clear that my goal is only to convince through my arguments and via by my social credibility in a small social community. Maybe my assumption is wrong but I expect intelligent people to value arguments by their weight alone and not by the name behind or the person's social credibility. See my correspondence with James Robertson, which proves me wrong and which shows that even intelligent people go for the human factor first. But this fault is not in me but in the wrong priorities that people like James Robertson set for themselves. Unfortunately, my previous personal contacts with James Robertson were not much different. And I was a lot politer and less straightforward then. He was immune to any advise or critics especially from a European. And again: a couple of direct e-mails assured me that I'm absolutely not alone with my disgust about the Seaside documentation and technical details. Those people don't write here anymore and they would not want to oppose to the social majority of this mailing list. If you carefully follow various posts on this mailing list you will see that it very much depends on who is writing about. This is normal on any forum, but it doesn't help the technical aspects, which are the subject of this mailing list. People with low social standing are immediately put down by the local lions if they are asking the wrong question and even more if they dare to criticise these lions. Such a mailing list follows the simple laws of a chicken run. The loudest cocks rule the others .... until the dog comes. And I have only been barking from the outside! With no interest to get inside. I am writing to find intelligent and open-minded people who have encountered the same problems (not all, but perhaps several) that we have. People who have asked themselves why the authors of Seaside put so much effort in a mailing list instead of spending at least half of that time for documenting their work! If they had done so, Seaside would comprise of at least a very thick and comprehensive documentation! I don't know the answer why they have chosen to go that way and to try to replace documentation by a mailing list. Maybe they are just too inexperienced, I don't know. Perhaps they want to sell their consultancy as a business (not to the mailing list, but to professional users). Again: that would be fine for me as long as that is clearly stated. But it is not. I am really fed up with these social discussions. The fact is that hardly anybody has looked at or even responded to my substantial engineering proposals. Just about two of them were discussed and, of course, only those that primarily rely on taste and situation. The rest is just omitted! I think this speaks very much against the interest and perhaps also against the professionality of most regular contributors to this list. But I strongly suppose that there are many readers who don't regularly contribute but who still are interested in reading proposals. As I said, a couple of e-mails prove me right in this respect. Did you read my proposals? What you think of them? Why don't you concentrate on these? Does the value of my technical arguments depend for you on my social rank in this mailing list? Excuse me, but it seems as though you have missed the subject, amoung us: "Thema verfehlt". Nevertheless, thank you for your engagement but I think it would have been more useful for all readers if you had put this time into discussing or enhancing my technical proposals on my blog. We're not here to discuss social subjects of a chicken run. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Mr. Cucumber
-- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger01 _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |