El sáb, 23-06-2012 a las 11:31 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh escribió:
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:24:32 +0200
> Pacho Ramos <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > As Peter explains, I think it is now clear enough what I was demanding
> > (about clarifying what is needed to get things in next EAPI to prevent
> > issues like Tommy is suffering to get multilib stuff done), but I star
> > to think Ciaran thinks it's easier to simply wear a blindfold on to
> > keep thinking all what he says cannot be corrected at all, neither
> > improved and others must follow his instructions blindly
> Oh come on. You're just shooting the messenger. You don't like being
> told that if you want something, someone needs to do the work, and you
> can't just say "I want a flying unicorn!" and expect it to happen.
> I'm not the only one saying it, either. I point you to this, for
That shows how things can be done and how shouldn't be done, it's not
casual that you are always involved in this kind of discussions, instead
of thinking all people is trying to "shoot the messenger", maybe you
should think about you acts here (I know it's difficult, specially when
discussions are done virtually and not in real world where you,
probably, would understand better that your way of demanding things and
putting conditions is not the way to go). Making constructive
suggestions instead of others that can be easily interpreted as whims is
the way to go.
> > Ciaran, simply think that, if PMS team agrees with a doc explaining
> > what needs to be provided and the procedure, you will also save time
> > and not need to follow this tedious discussions, all parts will
> > benefit for sure.
> The procedure is not the important part. The important part is finding
> someone who can do enough of the work that the PMS team can understand
> your proposal and polish off the rough edges. The work that needs to be
> done for that is very much a case by case thing, and it's not just a
> simple list of steps that anyone can follow blindly. The features
> you're asking for that aren't magically appearing are hard.
> I'll remind you that for "big" features, the GLEP process is already
You know what I exactly mean, don't try to change the topic to "GLEP
process is already documented" to hide you don't want to put anything of
your time to help others to get proper documentation prepared to show to
pms team. Of course, you have the right to do so as this is all
contribution work that we do it if we want and have time, but don't try
to hide it in this way.