| 1 |
On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Denis Dupeyron <calchan@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Rich, if I may have a suggestion, it would be that instead of meddling |
| 3 |
> with projects that have been doing their best with what they have for |
| 4 |
> years, and which need praise rather than hindrance, you instead start |
| 5 |
> a project to get people to think positively and accept criticism. The |
| 6 |
> amount of energy that was spent in this thread and many others in pure |
| 7 |
> loss could have gone a long way. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The only thing that I've offered to do is to help people join the |
| 10 |
games team, which is supposed to be an open team anyway. That is |
| 11 |
about the extent of the "meddling" that I've proposed. I've yet to |
| 12 |
hear anybody on the games team comment that more help would not be |
| 13 |
welcome. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That said, I've also yet to hear from anybody actually interested in |
| 16 |
joining the games team. So, that idea may not end up going anywhere |
| 17 |
anyway. The premise has been that there are people interested in |
| 18 |
working on games but they've been prevented from doing so, and working |
| 19 |
to help improve the games team from within is better than imposing |
| 20 |
direction from above. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If indeed nobody actually wants to join the games team, then the next |
| 23 |
question is whether to leave things alone, or to find another |
| 24 |
solution. Either way I'd like to hear more from anybody who actually |
| 25 |
wants to maintain games packages but feels they have been unable to do |
| 26 |
so. Simply changing policies won't make actual work happen. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Rich |
Archives