On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Ximin Luo <[email protected]> wrote:
> (a reply to Matthew's post is in the 2nd half of this email.) > > On 21/10/10 21:29, Ian Clarke wrote: > > Its not an "attitude", its a fact. Developers want to be part of > projects > > which are actually being used, and of course they need to discover those > > projects in the first place. Few developers get excited about jumping on > > board a project with a declining user-base. > > This doesn't necessarily result in good project co-ordination/management. > New > developers result in (temporarily) *more disruption*, unless a project is > well > co-ordinated. > No it doesn't necessarily result in good project co-ordination, nor does it necessarily result in bad project co-ordination. What it does result in is more developers, which we clearly need. > >> So, I think a good way to address the problem of the bugtracker would be > >> to re-think the current attitude towards releases. We want more users; > >> however, many things that are needed to sustain this project in the long > >> run **won't directly attract users** - doesn't mean we can skip or > ignore > >> them. > > > > Nobody suggested that. If you disagree, please provide specific > examples. > > Um, well that was my entire point.. and the other 2 paragraphs you wrote > (the > ones I haven't quoted here) were actually straw men. > I provided specific quotes at the bottom of my previous email. Also the > evidence (ie. messy bugtracker) speaks for itself. You might not be > neglecting > it on purpose, but focusing on other things and never mentioning it, > results in > it being neglected. I've never seen you nor Matthew talk much detail about > co-ordination/management. > Neither Matthew nor I ever claimed to be perfect, nor have either of us claimed that there is no room for improvement in how the project is organized. You were the one that made the assertion that our desire to ensure that our releases receive publicity is the reason for this lack of perfection in other areas, and that is what I disagreed with. If you can provide evidence to support your claim that our desire that people actually learn about and use Freenet is hurting the project then please present it. > > It is also very clear that more users results in more content results in > > more users results in more content, that more performance, both in terms > of > > raw speed and data persistence, results in more users. The same is true > of > > ease of use, and of core functionality - which IMHO includes working > > searching, easy blogging, chat, and filesharing. > > This is an oversimplified way of looking at things. More users means more > support requests and more breakages and more attack attempts, and generally > greater complexity. You need the infrastructure to deal with all of this. > So we should avoid users because they might find bugs or ask for help?! This is a ridiculous argument. Yes, more users may mean we get more support requests, but there will also be more users capable of answering those support requests. Yes it might mean that we have other challenges as the network grows, but we'll also have more developers to help meet those challenges. Any project that adopts the philosophy of avoiding users is a project that won't exist for much longer. I'm going to do all I can to attract users and developers to the project, and you should welcome that. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: [email protected] Ph: +1 512 422 3588
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
