Hi Joe, While I agree that Rob may have been heavy handed and aggressive with his edits of this wiki page and general tone. I reviewed each of his 6 (or so) edits and must admit that each of them is not objectionable individually.
I think that this FAQ is valuable and all have contributed. Thanks to Simon for starting it. We could all be more gentle and less "bitchy" about the process. Take a deep breath! We've come a long way in less than a year at Apache! Regards, Dave (Joe, you're a rock too!) On Mar 13, 2012, at 8:27 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote: > It was a WIKI PAGE and there was NO NEED to ensure it conformed > to the standards of SITE DOCUMENTS. You just decided to play > the ass card again and there's one less active volunteer working > on the wiki now as a result. > > > The world isn't black and white Rob, there are shades of grey > that you should start factoring in before you scare off more > potential collaborators that don't see eye-to-eye with you. > At Apache the "plays well with others" attribute trumps just > about everything else, and you are missing that by a country > mile again. > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Rob Weir <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Cc: >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 11:14 PM >> Subject: Re: Clarifying facts >> >> On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Phipps <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 14 Mar 2012, at 02:36, Rob Weir wrote: >>>> >>>> Let's see if anyone else thinks this is too verbose. Remember, >> FAQ's >>>> are not intended to be read as an article, one after another. >>>> Typically they are things we we link to and point users to for >>>> specific questions. >>> >>> Since you have essentially eliminated my contributions and replaced them >> with something different, I'll withdraw from this activity until the >> partisan style you've chosen changes. A pity as we genuinely had some >> collaboration sparking between unlike minds. >>> >> >> I'm sorry you think it is partisan for new FAQ's to adopt the style of >> existing ones. In school we had a different word for this. We called >> it "editing". It would probably have been worth the effort to check >> the existing FAQ's before spending four hours of your evening writing >> in a contrasting style. Fortunately I was able to clean it up into a >> uniform style, add supplemental information, useful links for the >> reader, etc. >> >> In any case, your edits are not holy writ, and neither are mine. If >> there was a presumption against bold editing, then that presumption >> was in error. So let's have someone else take a pass, e.g., not you >> and not me, and see if they can improve it even further. >> >> And if your "client" has a specific question that you think is still >> not answered on the wiki, then please speak up. >> >> -Rob >> >>> As an added bonus you'll not have to worry about any edit locks :-) >>> >>> S. >>
