please take me off this list. > On Jun 19, 2020, at 8:49 AM, David Leangen <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > Please be in a good mood when you read this. Words can be taken the wrong > way. I am writing this with a big smile on my face, all in good humour. đ > >>> >>>> [... snipped everything ...] >> >> I agree with everything you wrote. > > I think you are taking certain things a little too much out of context. đ > > My point is more about being honest than being generous. I am not trying to > recruit anybody to provide free work. Not at all. > > When I say there should be some kind of SLA, I am not at all suggesting that > everybody commit a fixed amount of time or make any guarantees to solve other > peopleâs problems for free. Actually, I thought I had proposed quite the > opposite (that we list people and companies who are willing to do it for a > fee.) So it sounds like we are very much in agreement. Nobody should be > expected to work for free if the donât want to. > > My point is about being up front and honest, so people know what to expect > and can weigh their options. In order to build trust, we need to set > reasonable expectations (whatever they happen to be), and stick to them (or > update them if we canât). Personally, I prefer when somebody under-sells and > over-delivers the somebody who does the opposite. I can trust that person and > if I agree to their terms, I know I will be satisfied. From what I have read > and based on the people I know, I think that most people appear to be the > same. > > If people donât understand their options, then the unknowns make using James > too risky. In my mind, that is not a successful community project. > > For instance, if the website states that that a particular feature of James > works, then it really should work. Otherwise nobody will trust the James > community. > > There are already basic standards in place and are I think being respected, > else the community would very quickly fall apart: > > * New features should have tests > * Tests should always pass > * Code should always compile > * Etc. > > I could suggest that we add a bit to that list for the sole purpose of > setting expectations and, hopefully, eventually expanding the community. > > And anyway, is it really such a horrible thing, for instance, to ask somebody > who commits a feature to ensure that it gets documented properly? Or that the > code is readable? Etc. > > If it is too much to ask, then we should instead write disclaimers on the > website to warn people instead of trying to boast about how awesome James is. > >> Don't like it? Don't use it. > > I donât disagree with that statement. Let me just make sure that I completely > understand with this test: if somebody dumps trash all over a public place, > then states âDonât like it? Donât use it.â I donât think I would be very > happy. True, I wonât use a park full of trash because I donât like it, but I > think thatâs an abuse of this principle. I trust that is not what you mean, > right? I am assuming that what you mean is more along the lines of âThe suit > doesnât fit? Ok, donât wear it!" > > By all means, please go ahead and make nice suits, even if it doesnât fit > everybody. But please do not dump trash in the park. > > >> I am a volunteer in the Apache Software Foundation as all of us are. > > Sorry⌠I took the bait and feel compelled to respond to your little lecture. đ > > Are you really? > > The definition I found was: > >> a person who does something, especially helping other people, willingly and >> without being forced or paid to do it > > > Except for the âwithout getting paidâ part, I should point out that you are > stating exactly the opposite. đ > > Itâs all ok. You are just being honest about your intentions: you are in it > for your own gain, not to help others. If others can benefit from your work, > great, but that is not your primary objective. Fine. > > Of course there is nothing wrong with that. My efforts to help with > documentation are not entirely altruistic, either. But you canât have your > cake and eat it, too. You canât call yourself a âvolunteer" if really youâre > just in it for yourself and others just happen to maybe benefit. And if you > really are in it to help others, then you would be thinking of them first. > > So yeah, letâs just be honest and set the right expectations so everybody is > happy. > > Having an SLA will help do that. We should only commit to what we are willing > to commit to, but there **must** be a clear definition of the service level > that is being offered (even if essentially says "f*** you stupid userâ, at > least thatâs clear and honest.) > > > Ok, all that was very abstract and waaaaaay off-topic, but I wasnât expecting > a reaction like the one you had so I had to have a little fun with it. đ > > If you reread my initial message in this new light, I hope youâll find that > it was not intended to sound unreasonable. It is about honesty and > expectation setting, not free work. > > > So if we agree that an SLA is necessary (and I think we are agreeing), then > most of what you wrote (i.e. what you are not willing to commit to) relates > to what the contents of the SLA ought to be. And what you write makes good > sense in that context. > > > Cheers, > =David > >
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
