Chad wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Trevor Parscal
<tparscal(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
This advice is all well and good, unless someone
in particular actually
is misguided. Glad to see people jumping on the chance to posture
themselves as superior communicators - that's also really productive!
This is quickly getting OT. This is a productive list guys, lets keep
it that way :)
I don't think this is off-topic. And I think that ignoring the underlying
issues here is going to make the future dimmer, not brighter.
What authority one developer has over another should probably be made
clearer. There's a fine (and important) distinction between a revert that is
"this is implemented poorly or has issues currently" and "this is never
going to happen because I say so." I think a lot of people have
misinterpreted Tim's motives lately with specific reversions or code
changes, which indicates a communication problem. This is one of the issues
that comes along with developers working asynchronously and continents
apart.
Snarky mailing list replies aren't helpful, though venting often is.
Generally best not to vent in public, though. It isn't about people
posturing themselves as superior communicators, it's about figuring out ways
to ensure that actions and their underlying motives aren't misinterpreted.
MZMcBride