On Wednesday 22 October 2008 17:51:02 Monica Kraenzle wrote:
> But I also offered to talk about releasing an updated second edition and to
> collaborate.
Open source is all about collaboration. Jumping out of the bushes and 
demanding support is not it.

> But now to go to the book page and give a bad rating to say this is bad
> quality and the gimp developers say this is not an official manual is not
> the finest way. 

If documentation team has not reviewed what you are going to print with that 
goal, printing, in mind, it can hardly be called official. That and the 
attribution is are in my humble opinion the things that have stroked the 
community the wrong way. Attribution is the closest thing for reward the 
contributors get for their effort and tho they cant demand it, they do expect 
it as part of good manners. If attribution as individuals is not practical, 
then as a collective through a name the collective recognizes.

I do not think the bad rating giver is even a contributor. It can be anybody 
who has read this list. A list that is indexed by google quite fast through 
several list archives. Sven can hardly be blamed for expressing his opinion, 
that most there seem to share. 

>Do you consider this as fair?
I had nothing to do with the rating, but... Well,I do think it is fair. 
Support of a community is a great thing to have, but it needs to be earned by 
doing right by the community and not only by the letter of the law or at least 
by accepting and acknowledging your mistakes.  So far you have done neither, 
only complained.

> Not only to us but also to all the authors who worked on that version?
Id suspect the authors are not offended - it is by a "Sarah", isn't it...

> We had to bad intention at all.
Neither do any of us when pointing out to you what was/is exactly wrong with 
your approach. It's up to you to decide what you do, now that you know the 
sentiment of the community.

-- Alexia
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to