* b.n. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi,
> Your problem is: you live in the delusion that if you write thing X, > people immediately understand X and either refuse it or accept it. Isn't there an third state: "I didn't really understand what it's about - please explain" ? Can't speak for others, but my world isn't binary ;-P > If you write thing X and X is not blatantly, utmostly trivially obvious > (and even in this case) most people will NOT understand it. For example, > I am explaining to you this concept right now, and I see you have an > hard time grasping it. You see? IMHO, I do understand what you're talking about, but I don't aggree. Of course people cannot understand evrything. But they should at least understand if they do understand the issue or need it to be some bit more explained. Let's take an different part of life, not computers, take policits. I'm an elected representative. I have to decide lots of things here. Normally somebody brings some proposable we should vote on. Usually we talk about it before the vote (yeah, many people try to get their issues stamped w/o discussions before complaints could be raised ;-O) If I didn't fully understand the issue, I simply ask before voting. Issues don't get kicked off the agenda (aka marked INVALID) because the chairmain does not understand the whole thing. We rarely have cases where we actually don't want to vote on specific things due missing information or waiting for certain events. So we (by a vote) take it from the agenda for a while and take it back ofter some time (aka status NEEDINFO or LATER). We don't have something like bgz for that. Just pen+paper. But it works quite good. > So you have to explain it again and to "defend" your opinion in the > sense that you have to nail into the head of the relevant people that > you're right (or nail into yours that you are wrong). No that's really not what I'd call "defend". Maybe you can have to defend some opinion, ie. if votes on certain decisions are running (I want feature XYZ, or ABC should get in, etc). But on reporting an problem there's nothing to defend. It's just an (personal) report, no decision, nothing to vote. > > Okay, this is really getting in philophical topics liek god vs. satan ;-o > > (--> getting too offtopic ?) > > Yeah, but I like it. :) Of course we can talk about it, but I'm not sure if this list is the right place for that. Comments from others ? > > In case of the mozilla-launcher bug, I did explain it. And I found an > > quick and dirty solution for me. Not a clean one, but it's a start. > > We had several better ideas in this thread, which should be discussed. > > But as long as the bug is marked invalid, I have to assume that debate > > is unwelcomed and so won't invest much more resouces in that. > > No, you have to assume that people upstream have not understood why the > bug is valid. > The conversation was: > enrico: hey, there's bug X in package Y when doing Z > bugwrangler: (giving just a fast glance) hmmm, doesn't look like a bug. > maybe better avoiding wasting time. So he decided altough he should *KNOW* that he's missing necessary info. The right action would have been marking NEEDINFO instead of INVALID. > enrico: oh, don't you think it's a bug? F**K YOU MORONS ME IS WASTING TIME. That's just because he always declared my bugs invalid. So the message is "we're not interested in any of your reports". > Now the RIGHT reply would be: > enrico: ehm, no. you misunderstand me, probably. it's REALLY a bug for > those reasons. i'll try to be even more clear now...blah,blah...you see > it now? > b.w.: still not convinced > enrico: (repeat until convince someone or you are forced to give up) That would be correct, if the bug had been marked NEEDINFO. > > Well, of course we're all conditioned on defending if we're attacked, > > probably generic. But I really don't see I anytings to gain here > > than maybe my honour in such an unimportant place like bgo. > > That's where you are wrong, and that's why I still insist answering to > this thread. If you insist: > - you get all the community aware that there is a bug > - you could get the bug fixed > - Gentoo is better > That's why it is important. Frankly I don't care that much about your > honour :), but I care about Gentoo. It's my OS, I want it better. Well, in priciple I agree, but I'm really not willing in running against a wall over and over. If the people in charge don't show the slightest interest in my contributions, I don't see any reason for wasting more time. > But working alone helps no one apart from you and a bunch of > guys that agree with you. I don't have a problem with that. My fixes are working for me, and if helps others and contribute, its nice. If not, it doesn't actually matter. > Discussing your patches with people could always be helpful. Yes, that's why I'm posting them on this list. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service - http://www.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please visit the OpenSource QM Taskforce: http://wiki.metux.de/public/OpenSource_QM_Taskforce Patches / Fixes for a lot dozens of packages in dozens of versions: http://patches.metux.de/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
