| 1 |
On 1/20/08, James Laslavic <squarebottle@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> Was anybody else a bit disappointed to see that when the issue came up |
| 4 |
> in the new GMN, it only linked to the posts of developers who were |
| 5 |
> against the proposal? There was no attempt made at all to represent the |
| 6 |
> other side. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I was a bit disappointed that, when the first complaint hit this mailing |
| 10 |
list, there was no attempt made at all to thank the developers for the |
| 11 |
considerable amount of effort that they devoted to creating the GMN in the |
| 12 |
first place. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Feedback is welcome, but honey goes a lot farther than vinegar. It can be |
| 15 |
very demoralizing to invest a significant amount of time in a project, only |
| 16 |
to have people jump all over one aspect of it that might not have been |
| 17 |
perfect, while ignoring the rest of it that was. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And, since I know Mike is lurking somewhere waiting to tell me this is OT, |
| 20 |
perhaps a re-worded version of your email sent to |
| 21 |
gmn-feedback@××××××.orgwill result in a more balanced approach for the |
| 22 |
next version of the GMN. |
| 23 |
Or, if you want, perhaps you can draft and submit your own story and see if |
| 24 |
you can get that included. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
--kurt |
Archives