Petrus Lundqvist wrote:
>
> I wasn't the one with the critical comment. I was just saying that just
> because you "can't do better" doesn't mean you can't comment. Example: I
> can't make a skin for Mozilla but I do have LOTS of ideas and comments on
> the current ones. If I write a long post about how to improve a skin or
> even if I take the tone of "hey, this sucks.. this should be fixed!", it
> shouldn't trigger "shut up or make a better one yourself" comments. It
> should be received as any feedback from anyone - participating in working
> on the project or not. Participation is not what makes a comment valid or
> not.
>
> Peppe
Perhaps I misunderstood. The critical comment was about schedule
slipping. Schedules are a dream world but they are helpful in defining
goals. But schedules are usually internal affairs not subject to
critical comment by outsiders. When I signed a contract to work on my
present project more than 3 years ago, I considered the two year span of
the project reasonable. 3 years after gitgo, I finally get working
parts. As an insider, I was highly critical of slips even though I was
able to take a year off in bits and pieces over the three years. The
prospective customers are not critical of the slips. They either
complain that they must go elsewhere or they silently go elsewhere. We
have to ignore that and continue. No outside influence can give the
project team more hours in the day. With 36 hour days, my project would
be on schedule. Where did the schedule fail? There was more work than
any of us thought and each of us was specialized so that, for example,
when I was ahead, I was idle.
This is why I am sensitive about criticism for schedule slips on any
project.
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED]
