| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> > Making constructive suggestions instead of others that can be |
| 3 |
> > easily interpreted as whims is the way to go. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Uh huh, and that's what I've been doing the whole time when I've |
| 6 |
> been asking for a patch for PMS, a GLEP etc. |
| 7 |
.. |
| 8 |
> requests for a better description we're supposed to be looking at |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
No, this isn't really constructive. As I wrote, try to drive the |
| 11 |
discussion by adding substance to it, rather than fueling flames |
| 12 |
by requesting others to refine. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Since it is an area where you may be able to contribute, I think |
| 15 |
it would be great if you did! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> are being met with complaints that we haven't magically done all |
| 19 |
> of the remaining work |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think you're right that complaints are about your response, but I |
| 22 |
absolutely do not interpret the complaints to be that you personally |
| 23 |
or the PMS team did not implement the requested feature. I think |
| 24 |
that's a misunderstanding of yours. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If you don't understand something of what thus far has been written, |
| 27 |
then why not ask specific questions to fill those gaps, and move on? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
//Peter |
Archives