On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Angelo Gladding <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Branko Vukelic <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Angelo Gladding <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Branko Vukelic <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Although I will probably inevitably end up sounding like a fascist, I >>>> don't think a public vote should be the principal decision-making >>>> mechanism in projects like this. It's better that everyone simply >>>> takes a look at the work-in-progress stuff and contribute their ideas. >>> >>> It's hard to be cordial when my suggestions of essentially keeping >>> nothing and changing everything are being sent to an entrenched artist >>> who is commandeering the project under a blurry portrayal of having >>> been greenlighted by you. But I tried! I wrapped up my proposal and >>> itemized the changes /that could obviously be made under any design >>> scheme/. >> >> Then why do you keep saying things like we are pitted one against the >> other (when it was obvious from the beginning that was not the case). > > You never acknowledged that I too had work-in-progress. Everything > said so far has been predicated on the notion that you and Justin are > the de-facto leaders in this endeavor. This point was driven home when > you lashed out at me for formally introducing my proposal.
Firstly, I was asked by Jason to help him implement a proposal I posted on this group (in public, that is) a long time ago. I put a few hours into that making sure Anand and Jason were happy with whatever was going to be used. And that's the end of it. That doesn't mean we are "in charge" or "leading this endeavor" or anything similar. We are simply contributing to the site the way we know how. I don't know why it is in any way threatening you or anyone else here. Secondly, my criticizing you general attitude towards me in particular has _nothing_ to do with your proposals or your skills. In fact, if you reread my second reply to you, you will find that I have talked about the way you approach us, and not the contents of your proposal. Mixing the two is entirely your own mistake, and frankly, I think that kind of misperception can only do you harm in any situation, not just this one. It's the kind of self-destructive behavior that completely nulls your skills and intelligence which nobody here disputes. Also, our work was addressing the _style_, and _first impression_. I think I've made this clear on one occasion as did Jason in a later reply. Both Jason and I have issues about website's information architecture and feature set, but that was simply not a priority for _this particular project_. As you said yourself, your work was addressing those other issues, and could actually have _complemented_ our work _at any time_. I see no reason for dispute as far as what we are doing goes. As Anand says, you are free to work on the areas of the site you feel need improvement. If that crosses our paths, you are, again, free to contribute ideas, just as we have, and ask for modifications on our template, or propose them, to accommodate your ideas. -- Branko Vukelić http://foxbunny.tumblr.com/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/16889...@n04/ http://www.twitter.com/foxbunny http://github.com/foxbunny -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web.py" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/webpy?hl=en.
