Mike Lee wrote:
>
> This is not a flame, so turn down the sensitive meter...
Do I come across as a "sensitive" type of guy Mike? ;-)
> It seems you want
> to be contributing to the mozilla (for whatever reason),
Yeah, I don't understand it either ;-).
> and indeed you have
> with the 1.0 requirement (not that I agree with it, but its not my call)
>
It is indeed "your call", as much as it is mine or anybody else's. If
there's something in there you disagree with, let's hear it and have it
out, take the sad song and make it better, or try to convince you that
you're wrong if indeed you are. That's the great thing about "Open
Source", that it's "Open".
Isn't it? Isn't that how this is all supposed to work? I hope "Open"
ain't just lip service.
> But please from now on don't bash aol, mozilla, or its current state,
> especially when you replying to post about a problem a person is having. It
> does not add anything to your creditability.
>
"Bash" as in what exactly? I take it that you don't want me expressing
my extreme disappointment in most things Mozilla, correct? I ask you
sir, how does that do anybody any good?
> Making suggestions shouldnt be based on abuse,
Who am I abusing Mr. Lee? Indeed there are more than a few here who can
dish it out and have found out that they can't take it, but they
wouldn't have had to find that out had they not done the "dishing" in
the first place.
> maybe you trying to get a
> "we'll show you!" from mozilla developer.
Wouldn't hurt, would it?
> But that thinking will only last
> for a few minute before "whats this JTK guy trying to pull here?" and back
> to what they were doing forgeting your suggestion.
>
And if I say nothing, they don't even think for that moment. Nor does
anyone else. The Mozilla developers are not the only sheep of my flock.
> A "real" suggestion will make the developers think/listen and if enough
> thinking go into it, it might get it done.
I don't follow Mr. Lee. My suggestions are somehow not "thought
through"? That certainly does not apply to my release criteria
contributions, nor to this "Call for Openness". What exactly are you
referring to?
> When one saw your post (even if
> its a serious one). they not going to take it as seriously as post from Ian,
> Gerv, D.Hyatt
>
Then so be it. The loss is theirs, and Mozilla's.
> Compliment the developers, especially in a public newsgroup.
With all due respect sir, I find little about Mozilla that is worth
praise. Four years worth of work that NC4.7x *still* kicks the crap out
of in almost all respects is not a triumph, it is a tragedy. It is a
tragedy caused solely by a lack of clear thinking, adequate leadership,
and "Openness". I am doing the best I can to help correct these
problems.
Using the case at hand as a prime example, I ask you sir, can you
imagine a single reason why the two addresses I mention in this request
are not available to the general public*? Ms. Baker RUNS MOZILLA.ORG
for heaven's sake! What could possibly be more topical to mozilla.org
than her "State Of The Mozilla" address? She is speaking for you,
aren't you the least bit interested in what she had to say?
*If indeed that is the case, and I haven't simply missed them somehow.
> You might read
> somewhere B.Gates abuse its executive in meetings for not meeting deadlines.
> But you not B.Gates nor mozilla equivalent,
Nor do I desire such a post, unless it comes with his money and Above
The Law status.
> and newsgroup is definately not
> a closed meeting...
>
It's not supposed to be, but it seems to me that you'd rather it were.
--
Gary "JTK" Van Sickle
