On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Nathan Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Also, this is exactly my point about being disrespectful and hurting >> the community. You are devaluating the opinions of volunteers in the >> community because you get to spend your paid time on it. I still >> contribute multiple hours each week to the project either through >> reviewing patches, helping evaluate bug reports or working with my SoC >> student. > > And you forgot to include "... keeping the flamewar hot", since that's > what you've being doing these days.
I guess so, although other people have spoken up and were ignored or given half-answers. I've received a number of private messages from community members that feel their voices are being ignored thanking me for not letting this license change slip in unchallenged. You think I like this ridiculous discussion? Not a bit, it's killing any motivation to do what little I can for E these days. I am only spending this much time because it's a very crucial and time sensitive issue. As I've learned in the past, if you don't speak up quickly on these things some people assume that means agreement. >> Apparently, this is of no value to you and anyone in that >> role should just leave. If that were the case, anyone in the project >> for more than two years shouldn't be allowed to speak up, because >> we've all had to cut back our commit levels at some points. > > this have some value, but I guess in a meritocracy those doing more, > have more rights. And you get to choose the time scale and individual value of this meritocracy? How do I get that job? The way meritocracies work is that you gain respect within a community by contributing merit over a long period of time. You don't get granted authority by anyone, but people within the community weigh your opinion more heavily because of your long standing contributions. As I pointed out before, everyone that has worked on E for any significant amount of time has had a lull in their commit levels. You are not an exception to this rule either. > And my point is not about talking much, but doing few. As Jorge said, > people talked and talked about split data library. Nobody did a shit, > it was he that did the work. It will be he and some other few to > convert the libs to use it. Wrong again. I did this once already at least 6 years ago. At that time raster had decided that evas was not going to have any dependencies directly below it. As Jorge pointed out, his work has been sitting there for 2 years already. This was not about someone doing the work, but about the willingness to accept a data lib dependency on Evas. > If you, instead of talking, did the split and ported the libs, nothing > of this would happen. Nobody has any right to force you to do such > things, but you have no right to impose your opinion on the others > too. I already answered about the split. I am not the one trying to impose my opinion on the project. Did I come to the project and force us all to accept a new license? Have you refuted any of my reasons that I laid out for why this move doesn't make sense? There is a long email where I laid them out in detail. It got no real response from the proponents of this move, and the little response that I did get didn't counter any of my arguments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
