Re: Diversity (Was: Re: FW: Error compiling ...)

[Richard Frith-Macdonald]

On 2005-06-22 10:02:49 +0100 Stefan Urbanek <stefan@agentfarms.net> wrote:

> There are many kinds of people and they have different knowledge. Each one 
> is
> an
> expert (specialist) in his own field, either by profession, education or as 
> a
> hobby. In a project each knowledge and skill should be appreciated, 
> regardless
> whether it is programming, design, abstract thinking, project management,
> marketing, communication, etc.

Agreed.

> It is fatal mistake that only programming and development skills should be
> valued to an open-source project. I have an impression that if someone does 
> not
> do programming, then he is recognised as useless for a project.

I don't get the impression there is a lot of that (some, but not a lot).

> Comments like
> "stop talking, implement it if you do not like how it is now" are only
> higlighting the programmers elitism.

Yes, but in my experience, that sort of comment tends to be brought out as a 
response to an aggressive/unhelpful sounding comment ... ill humour feeds 
ill humour ... that's how flame wars start.  I think that such comments are 
often just an expression of irritation with people who make negative rather 
than positive suggestions, rather than en expression of elitism.

> It is like saying that only workers at
> construction tables are important in a factory. Each position in a factory
> should be valued equally as each position is important for the whole to 
> work,
> produce goods and most importantly: survive.

I think that's a poorly chosen analogy,  as the 'factory' idea brings in 
economics and political theory.  Taken literally you are suggesting a pretty 
pure communist viewpoint.  Personally, I don't think you can reasonably 
quantify things that clearly ... but the conclusion 'Each position in a 
factory should be valued equally' plainly does not follow from the premise 
'each position is important for the whole to work', so I think you will 
probably alienate quite a few readers with it.
I would prefer to say that everyones contribution should be valued, rather 
than saying you must value all contributions equally.

> Programmers and thinkers should go hand in hand and cooperate, not argue.

Yep.

> One
> party says: "you only talk, program!" and the other says: "you are too deep 
> in
> your code, see around!". Noone is going to change his attitude to the 
> project
> and both approaches if taken separately are not going to produce reasonable
> results. What is needed? A bit of tollerance and understandability of each
> other mixed with constructive communication.

Yep.

> Alex does not do lots of programming, as far as I know. On the other hand, 
> he
> has great ability to see things in larger context. Also I think he is good 
> in
> seeing future consequences of certain issues being them states of project,
> behaviour of classes, decisions or actions taken in the project. He is a
> thinker and he points out things how they are. What is wrong with it?

Nothing ... the only criticism that's been levelled at him really is the 
*manner* in which he approaches emailing...
Personally, I'm quite aware of several helpful comments from Alex on the 
mailing list, but also of many which are plainly classifiable as flame-bait.

> Also, why I have the impression that some developers get offended when 
> someone
> says that this or that feature is bad or this new thing should be 
> implemented?

Well, it would be inhuman if that didn't happen to some extent ... but it 
doesn't happen much, and certainly not as much as in many projects.

> Because they are too responsible for their parts of the project. There is
> nothing wrong with the responsibility. Problem is, that they think that they
> should implement the feature X or they should fix the problem Y.

Or they think that X is a bad idea and Y is the correct behavior.  The mere 
fact that someone complains about something is no guarantee that the 
complaint is legitimate.  A slavish instant attempt to 'correct' any issue 
is a terrible way to run things (as is rejecting any change).  I'm somewhat 
conservative ... in that I don't want to make changes which might break the 
system, so my general principle is that if it aint broke, don't fix it.

> If they have
> no time, thay say, that the one who made the suggestion should implement 
> it. 
> If
> he can not, prehaps because he is not good programmer, then he should stop
> talking ang go back to his sand-box.

Actually, in the case where nobody has time, I think it's stop talking and 
add it to the feature requests on savannah, so that when someone does have 
the time it can get done (rather than forgotten).

> Hey! But why do you feel too responsible?
> Because you are alone for your subproject, or there are only few of you...
>
> Conlusion? Stop the elitism of programmers. Keep others talking. People are
> different. If for nothing more, then just for the record of a problem or of 
> an
> idea for future developers (*). Ideas, notes and knowledge have value as 
> well
> as code.

Well, I think that's a fair point, but I don't think it's particularly 
relevant, as I think the main issue here was about how to make a polite and 
productive contribution to a debate rather than an impolite, 
counterproductive one.

True, David's email was probably provocative/unhelpful, but it was a 
*response* to a provocative/unhelpful email rather than the start of the 
chain of events.