Martin: > This is a rather incomplete and therefore, at least to my opinion, > pretty unfortunate and unsuitable representation of a certain status > quo.
It wasn't meant to be a representation of any status quo - it is what you (among others) have been communicating (at least to me, given private feedback I have received off the list also to others) as your picture of the status quo. If that's not what you meant to communicate, that's good - then you know that you can be misunderstood - that's what feedback is for. >> [...] Still, none of the third party sceneries directly help the goal >> of adding data to the server or helping fix TerraGear to push out a >> new World Scenery package [...] > Well said ! Right. Now - how to get to the desired outcome? That's what my comment is all about. You are experienced in scenery development. You are quite probably right in assuming that your way of doing things is better than what others come up. Unfortunately, the human mind isn't structured so that people readily accept that and ask you to assign tasks to them. My experience is that newcomers to a project/field/... need to make their own experiments and mistakes first. That's called learning. There's nothing gained by continuously pointing out that they are new, that their work isn't up to existing standards and that they don't do it right. They'll find out eventually by themselves, given time. Speaking from my own experience in making weather - I had to experiment with clouds rotated with Nasal scripts initially. I heard a (subjective) million times that it runs too slow. I knew that, it didn't help me, and I knew I would improve the performance once I was sure what sort of transformation I wanted. What I needed was some encouragement to go on to get me over the frustration of things not working. In the end I settled on (almost) the same technique Stuart already had implemented. Why? Because it worked best. So, could I not have done it 'right' from the start based on Stuart's work? No - because I needed to understand the problem, not just use something I don't understand. And my experience is that after having made their own independent work, people are more ready to collaborate in projects. Before, it would be a one-sided thing - a teacher-student relation - one person knows what is to be done and commands, the other follows the instructions. After some independent work, it becomes more of a collaboration and things get discussed - even if 90% of the input are coming from one party and 10% of the other. But that sort of collaboration is hardly possible if you have been continuously blasting the others as not doing things right before. That sort of collaboration is actually more tedious for me than telling a student what to do. But it's also more fruitful in the long run. The alternative is always a lone wolf approach to your project - which has the advantage that you don't have to compromise on anything. In my experience, you can't expect a collaborative effort to work and expect people to accept that you are right in what you say at the same time (even if you are right - there is psychology as well in a collaboration...). Regardless of what you may think about other people's work, the forum (and regardless of what may or may not even be factually true) - I just fail to see any gain for Flightgear by speaking bad about the forum or other people's work without need. > Instead, having to assemble Scenery from a lot of different places if > you're after a bigger chunk, especially if these chunks don't fit > together properly, doesn't attract everyone. Neither does the public > impression of "why the hell does each of these fellows play in > everyone's private sandboxes instead of collaborating on fixing their > most pressing issues together". Yes - so what's wrong about convincing people rather than criticizing them which apparently doesn't seem to get a collaboration done (other than that convincing is usually more complicated, needs some empathy and more time)? Stuart: > Sorry to be a pedant, but this isn't quite true. I implemented METAR > weather interpolation prior to 2.0.0 in August 2007 using X-values. My apologies for missing that. My excuse is that none of the release binaries I have (0.9.1, 1.9.1 and 2.0.0) shows such behaviour. Vivian: > Some more accuracy would be appreciated from you: Vivian is man's name, > and a few seconds checking would have told you that this is indeed > the case. Well - then I've rather made a fool of myself with regard to the name... I am very sorry. I just looked it up - it really is ambiguous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_(name) As for misrepresenting your views - that's not what I have been trying to do. I have been trying to explain how your views and comments may come across to others, not trying to claim that this is how you think (which I don't know). > I'm sure you will agree peer review is not always a pleasant > experience, perhaps this colours your view of this list. I know the peer review culture of Physical Review C, Physics Letters B, Physical Review Letters, European Physical Journal of Science, DoE Grant applications, ERC Grant applications and a few others - and that's rather different. Is this so difficult to undestand? I would like to get the nastiness out of the communication - I have no problem with pointing out flaws in approaches and with having good and hard discussions - but can't we do it more nicely? Look at positive aspects as well? Try to encourage the person behind the work even when pointing out flaws in the work? Because that's how peer review can work. Cheers, * Thorsten ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
