The words of C. Bergstrom may have been poorly chosen, but he seems to have the same goal of wanting Wicket to succeed and grow in popularity. Providing harsh responses to users that, despite poor communication, are otherwise excited about your project does not help to grow your community or get others involved. This is not the first time I've been surprised by the harshness of responses from Wicket core committers. I hope these don't have the effect of pushing developers away.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Jeroen Steenbeeke <j.steenbeeke.ml@ gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Once again it seems a lame excuse to say you're too busy or the various > > other things when this could both give the project good pr and possibly > add > > more people who contribute to the framework. > > I've found that the best way to convince people does not involve insulting > the person you're trying to convince. There is merit to your argument of > good PR and possible new contributors, but let's not forget that the people > working on Wicket do so in their spare time - and you know that there are a > lot of things in life that require time. It is fully understandable that > what little time the developers have to spend on Wicket, they'd rather use > that time to improve the framework and fix bugs. > Mentoring a SoC student takes a considerable amount of time and > concentration, and while some students may blossom on their own, a lot of > them need guidance on a regular basis - this requires a massive investment > of spare time that could otherwise have been used for improving Wicket. A > mentor that is only half interested will not be an advantage to the > student, > and be bad PR rather than good - you need mentors that are willing, good, > know the framework well and have loads of time - the last of which does not > apply to a lot of Wicket Devs. Calling it lame doesn't change anything > about > it, but it does agitate the developers, which doesn't exactly help your > cause. > - Jeroen >