On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 00:29 -0800, David Fetter wrote: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote: > > > I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that > > > the community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been > > > left out of the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just > > > a reflex that is not always based on technical reasoning. Its just > > > that as you correctly point out are worried of being "high-jacked" > > > by companies. > > > > I hate to mention an emotional community reaction in this document. > > You don't have to name it that if you don't want to, although respect > (or at least a good simulation of it) is crucial when dealing with any > person or group.
I'm very interested in this, because it does seem to me that there is an emotional reaction to many things. > Handing the community a /fait accompli/ is a great > way to convey disrespect, no matter how well-meaning the process > originally was. In a humble, non-confrontational tone: Why/How does a patch imply a fait accompli, or show any disrespect? My own reaction to Teodor's recent submission, or Kai-Uwe Sattler's recent contributions has been: great news, patches need some work, but thanks. Please explain on, or off, list to help me understand. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend