1 |
On Monday 21 January 2008, Square Bottle wrote: |
2 |
> On Jan 20, 2008 8:56 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > a few things: |
4 |
> > - fix your top posting (in other words, stop doing it) |
5 |
> |
6 |
> It was an entirely new topic actually. |
7 |
|
8 |
that is no excuse for top posting |
9 |
|
10 |
> > - dont hijack existing threads |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Again, it was an entirely new topic. You surely noticed that it had a |
13 |
> brand new subject and everything. I accidentally left a different |
14 |
> quote at the bottom because I used a different email to quickly set it |
15 |
> up to send to the list, but this should have been the very last thing |
16 |
> for you to see anyway. |
17 |
|
18 |
and ? you've supported my point: you knowingly hijacked an existing thread. |
19 |
you dont click an existing thread, hit reply all, change subject and delete |
20 |
the body as that will not change the reply headers. your e-mail client was |
21 |
intelligent and kept all of the relevant headers. to start a new thread, you |
22 |
write a new e-mail, you dont reply to any other. |
23 |
|
24 |
> > no attempt was made to summarize anything at all. the article merely |
25 |
> > linked to all existing posts made by Gentoo developers. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> They chose to use some opinion posts from developers to summarize the |
28 |
> debate, but only ended up giving one side of the story. I don't really |
29 |
> know how you can say there was no attempt to summarize it, because |
30 |
> clearly something was meant to be reported, or else it would not have |
31 |
> made it into GMN which is itself supposed to summarize what's going on |
32 |
> in the big world of Gentoo. |
33 |
|
34 |
listing reactions is not a summary, it's a listing of reactions. |
35 |
|
36 |
> > if no Gentoo developer made |
37 |
> > a post that supported Daniel's proposal, then it isnt exactly possible to |
38 |
> > link to it now is it ? |
39 |
> |
40 |
> Then the editor probably should have reconsidered how to deliver the |
41 |
> information. Also, I sort of doubt that there aren't any gentoo |
42 |
> developers at all on the other side. In any case, like I originally |
43 |
> said, it's entirely possibly that it was just an unintentional |
44 |
> mistake. But it still happened. |
45 |
|
46 |
where's the threads ? list a single Gentoo developer that was left out and |
47 |
it'll get added. you're making something out of nothing. |
48 |
|
49 |
> > at any rate, the general opinion was reflected in the |
50 |
> > aforementioned blog posts. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Actually, no, the general opinion not only wasn't reflected, but it |
53 |
> wasn't even talked about, which is a big part of why I was upset. The |
54 |
> general opinion is that Daniel coming back would be a good thing, as |
55 |
> evidenced by the overwhelming majority of people that voted in favor |
56 |
> of him coming back. Perhaps among developers the percentage is |
57 |
> different (it sure seems like the developers have the opposite opinion |
58 |
> of the community at large), but we don't know for sure exactly how it |
59 |
> breaks down. The fact of the matter is that there are two sides, and |
60 |
> one side has a very clear majority of support from the general |
61 |
> community, and this side was not at all represented. If you are going |
62 |
> to post opinion pieces from one side, you must post opinion pieces |
63 |
> from the other side. Part of being a reporter is going out and getting |
64 |
> quotes to represent all sides when trying to tell the news. |
65 |
|
66 |
it's a list of all Gentoo developers and it reflects the general developer |
67 |
opinion. no other things were listed. implying this was intentional or had |
68 |
some agenda is ridiculous. if you'd like to see more information in the GWM, |
69 |
you should have e-mailed the GWM feedback list exactly like the newsletter |
70 |
said to. it's pretty simple: |
71 |
|
72 |
To: gmn-feedback@g.o |
73 |
Subject: About "Reaction on ...." |
74 |
Body: |
75 |
Hi! Could you include some links to the forums/mailing lists where the offer |
76 |
was discussed ? Here's some example links: |
77 |
http://........../ |
78 |
http://........../ |
79 |
|
80 |
complaining on the -nfp list is not the place for it |
81 |
|
82 |
> > taking a yes/no poll is garbage as the options |
83 |
> > are garbage. you cant approach the issue that way. |
84 |
> |
85 |
> No, but it's loads better than leaving the other side out completely |
86 |
> at least. The poll at least showed the feelings of the general |
87 |
> community, and proved that there were two sides. I think that the poll |
88 |
> would be good if it was used in a supplementary manner to other |
89 |
> information, but I agree that it should not be used by itself. But I |
90 |
> would not call it complete garbage at all. It says quite a bit about a |
91 |
> lot of things, and I'd be worried if it was completely ignored. |
92 |
|
93 |
frankly, i dont think a yes/no poll on the topic is relevant at all. users |
94 |
may want to see a bunch of different things changed, but saying "we want |
95 |
drobbins!" is meaningless as it does not represent any of the underlying |
96 |
desires. all they're really voting for is "we'd like things |
97 |
different/better". great, we already knew that. |
98 |
-mike |