Chad wrote:
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Trevor Parscal tparscal@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