I know of no developer who intentionally breaks things. Suggesting that an operational project would intentionally install broken software is disrespectful in the extreme.
So is the term "geek minority" -- which I've now objected to twice. Some volunteers strictly follow what was asked, and some, to their credit, try to volunteer more -- which is great. But in this case, "respect" seems to mean "I want guaranteed work, no matter what happens." Next thing you know, we're voting on when s...@home can install upgrades, lest we show some "disrespect" to the users. I can't think of a bigger disaster than software development by democratic votes. I won't comment further. On 6/23/2010 1:34 PM, Raistmer wrote: >> ... and that's the problem. >> >> If you say "there is a problem" that's respectful. >> >> If you go straight to "they did this on purpose, just to cause trouble >> for the volunteers" then that is not respectful. >> >> -- Lynn > > Agree. > And when you give notice of changes before breaking all system down and some > explanations of what happened after bugs appeared in number - it is > respectful. When you treat part of volunteers just as "geek minority" and > simple not care about others cause they don't cry loud on boards - that is > not respectful. > Again, respect is two way street, it's very right. > > _______________________________________________ > boinc_dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev > To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and > (near bottom of page) enter your email address. > _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
