www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Newsgroups & Discussions

reply Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Hello NG citizens,

I've followed the few threads about IO performance, standard libraries, 
  C compatibility and all the other things that might have sound totally 
important to be set to stone, either way. I would like to appeal to all 
contributors to keep it on a level of technical discussions. There are 
already way too much subtle, as well as "not so subtle", accusations and 
personal aggressions in the game, which makes given threads a tad 
uncomfortable.

It's of no interest for the D community to split it up into two parties. 
  The community how I know it is always helpful, sometimes to be taken 
with a pinch of salt, but I've never seen such discussions full of salt 
here, since I've started reading and participating.

Please, step back a bit and think twice about what you're going to post, 
for the sake of productivity and helping each other. There's no point in 
killing each other, verbally, as we're all grown up and shouldn't 
actually let ourselves be led by our animal instincts that much.

Kind regards,
Alexander Panek
Mar 31 2007
next sibling parent Peter Modzelewski <peter.modzelewski gmail.com> writes:
Alexander Panek napisał(a):

 Hello NG citizens,
 
 I've followed the few threads about IO performance, standard libraries, 
  C compatibility and all the other things that might have sound totally 
 important to be set to stone, either way. I would like to appeal to all 
 contributors to keep it on a level of technical discussions. There are 
 already way too much subtle, as well as "not so subtle", accusations and 
 personal aggressions in the game, which makes given threads a tad 
 uncomfortable.
 
 It's of no interest for the D community to split it up into two parties. 
  The community how I know it is always helpful, sometimes to be taken 
 with a pinch of salt, but I've never seen such discussions full of salt 
 here, since I've started reading and participating.
 
 Please, step back a bit and think twice about what you're going to post, 
 for the sake of productivity and helping each other. There's no point in 
 killing each other, verbally, as we're all grown up and shouldn't 
 actually let ourselves be led by our animal instincts that much.
 
 Kind regards,
 Alexander Panek


I do understand why tango team is so flustrated. And I can understand 
why some words were said. But Alex here have a good point here. NG is 
public space, and flames only making bad job for D. I think if AA have a 
serious things to say and is ready for real discussion he can join 
#d.tango on freenode where all we can talk to tango developers. I'm 
looking forward for a serious irc debate, which log could be pasted then 
on NG. no need to fill NG with flame, there are enough D enemies all 
around the world, to fight eachother here ;)

P.S
Great work you do tango team \o/

P.S 2
Andrei, i am noone here. But i will apriciate if you would respect more 
people who did much more for D then you can think :) i know you are also 
very expirianced and quite famous person, but not only you ;)

P.S 3
peace! :D and as ALI G would say, RESPECT :D
Mar 31 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent "David B. Held" <dheld codelogicconsulting.com> writes:
Alexander Panek wrote:

 [...]
 It's of no interest for the D community to split it up into two parties. 
  The community how I know it is always helpful, sometimes to be taken 
 with a pinch of salt, but I've never seen such discussions full of salt 
 here, since I've started reading and participating.
 [...]


Hear, hear...if one regards the D community as a meta-organism trying to 
make its way in the world competing for attention with the communities 
built around other languages, one might rightfully say that it currently 
suffers from an autoimmune disorder.  Diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and 
fibromyalgia kill their sufferers slowly, and debilitate them in the 
meanwhile.

If we want our "organism" to become big and strong, then it is 
inevitable that it will suffer from some growing pains.  What we have to 
recognize is that while this community is built around technical common 
ground, it is still composed of human beings with feelings and 
attitudes.  And what humans want more than anything else, is respect. 
We want it so much we will kill for it.  Let's not kill each other 
trying to earn respect.  That can only end in a Pyhrric victory.  I find 
that respect is best earned when it is given.

On top of this is the problem of communication.  Communication is a very 
tricky business that we take for granted, but in fact, it is the most 
amazing thing that we do.  Communication is nothing less than mind 
control.  That's a pretty crazy idea, if you stop and think about it for 
a minute.  But in reality, communication is the attempt to impose a 
particular thought pattern in the minds of other individuals. 
Surprisingly enough, it works pretty well most of the time.  Many of us 
do indeed possess enough shared mutable state to make this system work. 
  Unfortunately, this process can end in deadlock and livelock, priority 
inversion and starvation.  A good, cheap solution is retry with 
exponential backoff.

People coming from different backgrounds are going to communicate 
differently, because they have a different set of shared assumptions. 
This is both good and bad.  It's good because different backgrounds 
bring a diversity of knowledge, just like you don't want your genetic 
pool to get too inbred.  It's bad because the disconnect in core values 
and meanings can cause misunderstandings in communication.  Parochialism 
is xenophobia is racism.  We all have it, we all do it.  My way is the 
best way.  Unfortunately, that's very rarely true.

In reality, coexistence comes from compromise.  At the root of most 
disagreements lay a difference in values.  The reason that religions are 
insanely successful meta-organisms is that they give their members a set 
of core values that they can agree on independently of their other 
values.  People in any given religion come from all across the spectrum, 
and any two of them will disagree on just as many things as any two 
people picked randomly from the entire population.  But what makes these 
two people different is that they have a set of values that they share 
that often trumps their differences in such a way that they can find 
common ground.  That's a pretty powerful ability, and not something to 
be taken lightly.

I conclude that we need a Pope of D.  Just kidding.  We already have 
one, we just need to get him a pointy hat.  More seriously, if D is 
going to advance from tribalism to civilized culture, we need to find a 
set of unifying principles that define the D community, and use those to 
smooth over the differences that arise naturally from diverse backgrounds.

But more immediately, we need to have a Good Friday peace accord, where 
everyone is granted a summary pardon, and we try to start fresh with the 
aim of striving for common understanding and mutual respect.  I think it 
is equally important to recognize the work that has been done in the D 
community thus far, and the work that is yet to be done to make D a 
world-class programming platform.  Every programmer brings with him/her 
a set of values about how things ought to be done and what's important. 
  We can't deny that each of us has these values, nor can we just turn 
them off at the flip of a switch.  However, through a process of 
incremental refinement (like simulated annealing), we can come to a 
mutual understanding that respects all the values involved.  The 
high-temperature phase is done, and now we need to move into the 
low-temp cooling phase to find the optimum.

I suggest we leave the stdio thread as a memorial to the blood shed in 
the name of D.  We can still talk about stdio in a new thread, but let's 
try to do so in a more conciliatory and respectful tone all around. 
Let's see if we can make a fresh start and get big without falling apart 
in the process.  Now I'm going to take my soapbox and go home...

Dave
Mar 31 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:
Alexander Panek wrote:

 Hello NG citizens,
 
 I've followed the few threads about IO performance, standard libraries, 
  C compatibility and all the other things that might have sound totally 
 important to be set to stone, either way. I would like to appeal to all 
 contributors to keep it on a level of technical discussions. There are 
 already way too much subtle, as well as "not so subtle", accusations and 
 personal aggressions in the game, which makes given threads a tad 
 uncomfortable.
 
 It's of no interest for the D community to split it up into two parties. 
  The community how I know it is always helpful, sometimes to be taken 
 with a pinch of salt, but I've never seen such discussions full of salt 
 here, since I've started reading and participating.
 
 Please, step back a bit and think twice about what you're going to post, 
 for the sake of productivity and helping each other. There's no point in 
 killing each other, verbally, as we're all grown up and shouldn't 
 actually let ourselves be led by our animal instincts that much.
 
 Kind regards,
 Alexander Panek


Looking at this in hindsight, we've seen worse here. At one time folks 
were almost lynching Walter, and now that I think about it, actually on 
more than one occasion, with different reasons each time. I myself was 
with the mob a few times (blush)! This time the target seems to be Andrei.

Sifting through what's been recently written, I find (totally IMHO, of 
course), instead of what's been said, I think the main reason has 
remained undiscovered -- both by spectators, the plaintiffs, and the 
"accused".

Whenever my ex used to kick my ass, it turned out to be about something 
else. Most of the time she didn't know this herself, until I let the 
dust settle and walk it through with her.

----

I think (or should I say, my guess is) that it's about the recent shift 
of power in D development. In the old days, it was this NG, and none but 
this NG that was the source, the forum and the ultimate judge, of what 
was and was not to become D features.

Today, it seems, the majority of new decisions are created outside this 
NG, and handed to us "as given". And most of the time it's Andrei that 
first tells us about the things.

I would downright expect this to *piss off* quite some participants. I 
for myself have taken a vacation here (as the regulars probably have 
noticed) because I feel D is in /very good and competent hands now/.

Before Walter brought Andrei really into this, I kept writing that we 
really need some Academic Rigor, Thorough Insight, and Profound 
Diligence, at this stage of D development. After some 12-18 months of 
this, Andrei suddenly started participating. Thank you, Walter!

I think that JCC could corroborate this by finding the appropriate 
quotes (man, did I ever see a person more adept at that! But, please 
don't do it JCC, this time I'm rhetoric!)


At the same time, we're blessed with some of the less fortunate but more 
verbous participants having radically reduced their presence, which 
saves bandwidth by not having us all explain crystal clear things in 
dozens of posts each.

Yes, the center of D development, visions, and influence has shifted. 
But I think this came at the right time. Honestly, guys, we couldn't 
have brought D much further -- simply because we lack the now needed 
qualities (listed above).


Now, as far as Tango goes, I think it is a formidable enterprise, and I 
honestly think that without Tango, D's future looks, er, less than 
shiny. (See, I avoided the pun!)

That Kris and even John (I almost soiled myself!) are on the barricades, 
IMHO, simply tells us that a lot of communicating has happened outside 
this NG, and that Alexei hasn't been there. But that's simple group 
dynamics. Whenever a person in controversy is not around, any group of 
people sooner or later start harboring adverse feelings about him -- if 
they regularly meet without him.


So, again IMHO, this is no biggie, just the unavoidable result of the 
above stated history.

If we see it as it is, and contemplate a moment about it, I'd guess 
everybody shrugs and the issue is buried. D doesn't need that kind of 
animosity -- especially when it's not genuinely about the persons at 
all, only about the "shift in power".
Mar 31 2007
next sibling parent reply Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 Alexander Panek wrote:

 [...]


 
 Looking at this in hindsight, we've seen worse here. At one time folks 
 were almost lynching Walter, and now that I think about it, actually on 
 more than one occasion, with different reasons each time. I myself was 
 with the mob a few times (blush)! This time the target seems to be Andrei.
 
 Sifting through what's been recently written, I find (totally IMHO, of 
 course), instead of what's been said, I think the main reason has 
 remained undiscovered -- both by spectators, the plaintiffs, and the 
 "accused".
 
 Whenever my ex used to kick my ass, it turned out to be about something 
 else. Most of the time she didn't know this herself, until I let the 
 dust settle and walk it through with her.


Heh, yea. Sounds familiar.


 [...]
 Yes, the center of D development, visions, and influence has shifted. 
 But I think this came at the right time. Honestly, guys, we couldn't 
 have brought D much further -- simply because we lack the now needed 
 qualities (listed above).
 
 Now, as far as Tango goes, I think it is a formidable enterprise, and I 
 honestly think that without Tango, D's future looks, er, less than 
 shiny. (See, I avoided the pun!)
 
 That Kris and even John (I almost soiled myself!) are on the barricades, 
 IMHO, simply tells us that a lot of communicating has happened outside 
 this NG, and that Alexei hasn't been there. But that's simple group 
 dynamics. Whenever a person in controversy is not around, any group of 
 people sooner or later start harboring adverse feelings about him -- if 
 they regularly meet without him.
 
 So, again IMHO, this is no biggie, just the unavoidable result of the 
 above stated history.
 
 If we see it as it is, and contemplate a moment about it, I'd guess 
 everybody shrugs and the issue is buried. D doesn't need that kind of 
 animosity -- especially when it's not genuinely about the persons at 
 all, only about the "shift in power".


I agree, with almost everything (not to say everything). The only thing 
that concerns me is, that with the ongoing development and less 
centralized communication in the NG, it might come to weird 
circumstances where people just start bugging each other, stepping on 
one another's feet, or what not. This is totally okay, up to some 
extent, yet we have a few leading people here in the D community - lets 
stick with their names: Walter, Andrei, Kris, Sean, Lars Ivar, and so on 
- who have their opinion and visions how to make D shine. I don't want 
to see them going into completely different directions because of 
personal disagreements led to by late-night discussions filled with 
aggression.

D can do better than that! I know this, I've seen this, I don't want to 
lose this, and I do think neither the above listed want this, nor any 
other people actively participating this newsgroup, or some projects 
that are not even known here.

I have a reason for greeting people in #D with "D nation". It may be 
just a language, but most people using D and participating in either 
way, are very knowledgable and especially nice people. Even though the 
amount of people using D is growing, as well as the channel btw., 
there's this core of people here on the newsgroup, discussing features, 
problems and what not else. This core of people are split into two 
parties at the moment. Those who use and defend Tango, and those who use 
and defend Phobos (it seems). I really don't like this. It's, as said, 
not only a pinch of salt thrown into the NG, but a whole sack of salt.

This may have happened already, but that's no reason to do it again, aye? :)

Kind regards,
Alexander Panek
Mar 31 2007
parent reply Georg Wrede <georg nospam.org> writes:
Alexander Panek wrote:

 Those who use and defend Tango, and those who use 
 and defend Phobos (it seems). I really don't like this. It's, as said, 
 not only a pinch of salt thrown into the NG, but a whole sack of salt.


Tango and Phobos are not competing with each other.




Walter needs and uses Phobos for DMD development.
The Tango guys are doing us (the D community, including Walter, Don, 
Kris, me, and "you, the reader of this post", and the future users of 
D), a great favor by creating the library that D will ultimately be used 
with (both on Windows and Linux, both with DMD and GDC).


To demand that Walter immerses himself in library development (as in 
Tango) would be stretching a single man's turf to beyond even Walter's 
stride. So, the current dichotomy of two libraries is /good/ for us.

This is not G. Bush vs. the world, it is about D.
Mar 31 2007
parent Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 Alexander Panek wrote:

 Those who use and defend Tango, and those who use and defend Phobos 
 (it seems). I really don't like this. It's, as said, not only a pinch 
 of salt thrown into the NG, but a whole sack of salt.


 
 Tango and Phobos are not competing with each other.


Sure not, at least not on the surface..


 [...] 
 This is not G. Bush vs. the world, it is about D.


Seems like this didn't quite come out as I wanted it to come out. :P
Mar 31 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Justin C Calvarese <technocrat7 gmail.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 Alexander Panek wrote:

 Hello NG citizens,




...


 I think (or should I say, my guess is) that it's about the recent shift 
 of power in D development. In the old days, it was this NG, and none but 
 this NG that was the source, the forum and the ultimate judge, of what 
 was and was not to become D features.


The newsgroup was the place to discuss possible changes, but there was 
no confusion that Walter was the one who made the actual decision.


 Today, it seems, the majority of new decisions are created outside this 
 NG, and handed to us "as given". And most of the time it's Andrei that 
 first tells us about the things.


The majority of new decisions have always been made outside of the 
newsgroup, but we'd all find out when we read Walter's surprising post 
in the newsgroup.

But now it seems like Walter has a spokesperson who makes the 
announcements for him.


 I would downright expect this to *piss off* quite some participants. I 
 for myself have taken a vacation here (as the regulars probably have 
 noticed) because I feel D is in /very good and competent hands now/.
 
 Before Walter brought Andrei really into this, I kept writing that we 
 really need some Academic Rigor, Thorough Insight, and Profound 
 Diligence, at this stage of D development. After some 12-18 months of 
 this, Andrei suddenly started participating. Thank you, Walter!
 
 I think that JCC could corroborate this by finding the appropriate 
 quotes (man, did I ever see a person more adept at that! But, please 
 don't do it JCC, this time I'm rhetoric!)


There's no need to drag me into this. I'll let you do your own research. ;)

I don't know what's going on here. I've known Kris and John for quite a 
while from their involvement in D projects, and I trust that they don't 
have any agenda except to improve D and spread the joy of D. But other 
people might have other goals.

In any case, I don't see any signs that the D community is splitting 
into 2 factions (as the OP seems to suggest): pro-Phobos and pro-Tango 
(or anti-Tango and pro-Tango). If anything, it just seems to be some 
sort of nebulous disagreement between Kris and Andrei.

-- 
jcc7
Mar 31 2007
parent Alexander Panek <a.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Justin C Calvarese wrote:

 Georg Wrede wrote:

 Alexander Panek wrote:

 Hello NG citizens,




 
 ...
 

 I think (or should I say, my guess is) that it's about the recent 
 shift of power in D development. In the old days, it was this NG, and 
 none but this NG that was the source, the forum and the ultimate 
 judge, of what was and was not to become D features.


 
 The newsgroup was the place to discuss possible changes, but there was 
 no confusion that Walter was the one who made the actual decision.
 

 Today, it seems, the majority of new decisions are created outside 
 this NG, and handed to us "as given". And most of the time it's Andrei 
 that first tells us about the things.


 
 The majority of new decisions have always been made outside of the 
 newsgroup, but we'd all find out when we read Walter's surprising post 
 in the newsgroup.
 
 But now it seems like Walter has a spokesperson who makes the 
 announcements for him.
 

 I would downright expect this to *piss off* quite some participants. I 
 for myself have taken a vacation here (as the regulars probably have 
 noticed) because I feel D is in /very good and competent hands now/.

 Before Walter brought Andrei really into this, I kept writing that we 
 really need some Academic Rigor, Thorough Insight, and Profound 
 Diligence, at this stage of D development. After some 12-18 months of 
 this, Andrei suddenly started participating. Thank you, Walter!

 I think that JCC could corroborate this by finding the appropriate 
 quotes (man, did I ever see a person more adept at that! But, please 
 don't do it JCC, this time I'm rhetoric!)


 
 There's no need to drag me into this. I'll let you do your own research. ;)
 
 I don't know what's going on here. I've known Kris and John for quite a 
 while from their involvement in D projects, and I trust that they don't 
 have any agenda except to improve D and spread the joy of D. But other 
 people might have other goals.
 
 In any case, I don't see any signs that the D community is splitting 
 into 2 factions (as the OP seems to suggest): pro-Phobos and pro-Tango 
 (or anti-Tango and pro-Tango). If anything, it just seems to be some 
 sort of nebulous disagreement between Kris and Andrei.
 


Hopefully. I've just seen those threads got out of hand a bit, 
especially the last one deep down in a subsubsubsubmessage. Sure, it 
happens all the time everywhere that some people just can't come to a 
consensus on one topic, but that's no reason to "go on the warpath" 
(this sounds way more evil in English, than the pendant to that phrase n 
German :P).

I just wanted to appeal against verbal violance and a fractal 
newsgroup.. :P ;)
Apr 01 2007
prev sibling parent reply janderson <askme me.com> writes:
Georg Wrede wrote:

 
 Looking at this in hindsight, we've seen worse here. At one time folks 
 were almost lynching Walter, and now that I think about it, actually on 
 more than one occasion, with different reasons each time.


Kinda OT however one thing I've observed about Walters replies is that 
he is very diplomatic.  I mean even if he doesn't agree with something, 
his answers (at least to me) seem to be fair and not-an-attack (ok, 
whats a better word for this?).  I note, that often he ignores issues 
that are controversial.  I imagine that he won't be replying to this 
thread, or at least only to parts that are not controversial.

Of course most people are Walter supporters here, so the best examples 
of this are: that recent speech Walter did with those C++ people and 
also Walters replies to groups like the SlashDot crowd.  Although I have 
to admit, there have been a couple of slashdot messages he sent where 
frustration appeared to get the better of him.

Working this way I think actually enhances your position; making people 
much more likely to agree with your point of view.  It is particularly 
good when you show an understanding of the others point of view.

Note, I'm not sucking up to Walter and I know that there are other 
regulars on this group that are very good at keeping conversions 
professional, but I don't want to single anyone else out (because I'd 
probably forget someone).

I hope this does not sound like an attack on anyone, I just think the 
way Walter replies to messages is a good example of how to work 
effectively on this group.  If only we could all write as well as Walter.

BTW:  Does anyone have any websites on effectively dealing with people 
(face to face).  Its actually something I am continually trying to 
improve in myself.

-Joel
Apr 01 2007
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
janderson wrote:

 BTW:  Does anyone have any websites on effectively dealing with people 
 (face to face).  Its actually something I am continually trying to 
 improve in myself.


These two have helped me a lot:

"How to Win Friends and Influence People", by Dale Carnegie

"The Power of Positive Thinking", by Norman Vincent Peale

They're the classics, and for good reason.
Apr 01 2007
parent janderson <askme me.com> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 janderson wrote:

 BTW:  Does anyone have any websites on effectively dealing with people 
 (face to face).  Its actually something I am continually trying to 
 improve in myself.


 
 These two have helped me a lot:
 
 "How to Win Friends and Influence People", by Dale Carnegie
 
 "The Power of Positive Thinking", by Norman Vincent Peale
 
 They're the classics, and for good reason.


Thanks.  I'll try to order these from Amazon.

BTW for anyone else I found these for those books:

http://www.westegg.com/unmaintained/carnegie/win-friends.html
http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/~don/Study/Hcontents.html

They give a good summery.
Apr 01 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:
Hum, BTW, let me recommend this Google presentation that featured on 
slashdot some time ago:
"How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People "
http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
Note that the talk is more than just about "poisonous people", but 
community management in general.
(And just to be 100% clear, I'm not calling poisonous to anyone, I 
didn't even read that stdio/standard-libs threads, so I don't know what 
went on there)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - MSc in CS/E student
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
Apr 01 2007
next sibling parent janderson <askme me.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Hum, BTW, let me recommend this Google presentation that featured on 
 slashdot some time ago:
 "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People "
 http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
 Note that the talk is more than just about "poisonous people", but 
 community management in general.
 (And just to be 100% clear, I'm not calling poisonous to anyone, I 
 didn't even read that stdio/standard-libs threads, so I don't know what 
 went on there)
 


I think this is well worth watching, even for non-open-source products.

-Joel
Apr 01 2007
prev sibling parent reply Lionello Lunesu <lio lunesu.remove.com> writes:
Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Hum, BTW, let me recommend this Google presentation that featured on 
 slashdot some time ago:
 "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People "
 http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
 Note that the talk is more than just about "poisonous people", but 
 community management in general.
 (And just to be 100% clear, I'm not calling poisonous to anyone, I 
 didn't even read that stdio/standard-libs threads, so I don't know what 
 went on there)
 


What the h*** are "poisonous people"? Is it some kind of terrorist?

L.
Apr 02 2007
next sibling parent reply Lutger <lutger.blijdestijn gmail.com> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Hum, BTW, let me recommend this Google presentation that featured on 
 slashdot some time ago:
 "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People "
 http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
 Note that the talk is more than just about "poisonous people", but 
 community management in general.
 (And just to be 100% clear, I'm not calling poisonous to anyone, I 
 didn't even read that stdio/standard-libs threads, so I don't know 
 what went on there)


 
 What the h*** are "poisonous people"? Is it some kind of terrorist?
 
 L.


It's just a catchy frase about a very normal thing: people who drain 
human resources (time and focus) from a project and not always on 
purpose. It's a good video with well presented insights of group 
dynamics, applicable to any kind of community.
The only thing that is a pity is exactly this, it's not about dealing 
with 'poisonous people' perse, as if they were some kind of different 
breed, it's about (mostly technical) community / group management and 
disruptions. There is something potentially 'poisonous' in all of us, 
which is well worth remembering.
Apr 02 2007
parent Lionello Lunesu <lio lunesu.remove.com> writes:
Lutger wrote:

 Lionello Lunesu wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Hum, BTW, let me recommend this Google presentation that featured on 
 slashdot some time ago:
 "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People "
 http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
 Note that the talk is more than just about "poisonous people", but 
 community management in general.
 (And just to be 100% clear, I'm not calling poisonous to anyone, I 
 didn't even read that stdio/standard-libs threads, so I don't know 
 what went on there)


 What the h*** are "poisonous people"? Is it some kind of terrorist?

 L.


 
 It's just a catchy frase about a very normal thing: people who drain 
 human resources (time and focus) from a project and not always on 
 purpose. It's a good video with well presented insights of group 
 dynamics, applicable to any kind of community.
 The only thing that is a pity is exactly this, it's not about dealing 
 with 'poisonous people' perse, as if they were some kind of different 
 breed, it's about (mostly technical) community / group management and 
 disruptions. There is something potentially 'poisonous' in all of us, 
 which is well worth remembering.


Yeah, I know, that's what I was getting at with my 'terrorist' comment. 
I forgot to use a smiley to note the tone of my post :)

Much like we're all very capable of turning into "terrorists" (I mean, 
you don't get born "a terrorist), we also all have our poisonous 
moments. The last year I just got very allergic to these "generic" labels.

L.
Apr 02 2007
prev sibling parent janderson <askme me.com> writes:
Lionello Lunesu wrote:

 Bruno Medeiros wrote:

 Hum, BTW, let me recommend this Google presentation that featured on 
 slashdot some time ago:
 "How Open Source Projects Survive Poisonous People "
 http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-4216011961522818645
 Note that the talk is more than just about "poisonous people", but 
 community management in general.
 (And just to be 100% clear, I'm not calling poisonous to anyone, I 
 didn't even read that stdio/standard-libs threads, so I don't know 
 what went on there)


 
 What the h*** are "poisonous people"? Is it some kind of terrorist?
 
 L.


It seems that their open source projects may be a little more hostile 
then I would like, and their projects have much overhead for making a 
contribution.  I think the guys are a little harsh but they raise some 
good points.

-Joel
Apr 02 2007
prev sibling parent reply Reiner Pope <some address.com> writes:
Alexander Panek wrote:

 Please, step back a bit and think twice about what you're going to post, 
 for the sake of productivity and helping each other. There's no point in 
 killing each other, verbally, as we're all grown up and shouldn't 
 actually let ourselves be led by our animal instincts that much.


It's not right to expect John Reimer and kris to be silent without some 
kind of resolution.  They have aired grievances with a backing, and it 
is understandable that these should not simply be silenced for the 
purpose of 'keeping the NG together.' They have said specifically what 
about Andrei's online presence they found objectionable, so a general 
counter to such arguments does not do them credit; the correct way to 
respond to such points is address each of them individually and 
specifically. Calling it a dead horse because we do not share these 
objections is unfair to them, as I see it.


When I first read the stdio threads, I very much agreed with the JJR's 
and kris's point of view: Andrei seemed very pushy, seeming to repeat 
the idea, 'Phobos is now really good at IO, so why isn't Tango.' Andrei 
raised objection after objection to what Tango did: first speed, then 
readln discarding the newline; then speed again; then objecting to the 
call-chained code sample; objecting to Cout(a)(b) in general instead of 
Cout(a,b); then objecting to C/stdio incompatibility. Taken in context, 
it is easy to see this as an attack on Tango:
    1. Andrei talks about Phobos improvements.
    2. Andrei starts 3 successive threads questioning Tango's 
collections, and IO
    3. kris and Sean asked Andrei to submit Tango tickets; Andrei didn't.
    4. Comparisons between Phobos and Tango ensue; Tango appears to 
perform better, so Andrei's objections could be taken as 'excuses' for 
Phobos

Could.

This is certainly how I read it at first, so JJR and kris's posts about 
Andrei seemed spot on. However, on re-reading the stdio threads, with 
Andrei's posts in particular, his responses seem much more 
straight-forward: the objections he raises *do* have merit, and he seems 
  to be trying to help avoid bad design decisions in Tango IO -- a tough 
critique, but an altruistic one.

Yes, he does compare Tango with Phobos at times, like in 
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmar
.D&article_id=51365 
but that can be interpreted as him pointing out how a 'bona fide 
programmer' would see the choices for D. The comparison is to illustrate 
the problem, not to flame Tango.

He even completely admitted a mistake to James Dennet: 'If you did, 
fine. I take that part of my argument back.'


So, from the evidence of this alone, Andrei seems not to be following a 
secret agenda. However, he has (IMHO) made a few mistakes which make his 
D persona appear very aggressive:
     1. He, apparently without any evidence, implied that Tango's IO is 
probably not 'up to snuff' -- an allegation which seems to be completely 
unjustified.
     2. He didn't submit tickets for Tango.


mistake, and I hope that Andrei acknowledges it as such.


constructive design discussion. However, it is possible to understand 
Andrei's hesitance: having already pointed out the problem, couldn't 
kris or Sean simply submit the ticket?

In future, I hope that Andrei will do as kris and Sean ask and submit a 
ticket, if just to show good will.


I hope that kris and JJR could re-read Andrei's posts from the last week 
or so, supposing that Andrei didn't make the mistakes mentioned above. 
Hopefully, you will agree that in that light, Andrei seems straight-forward.

Hope that helps,

Reiner
Apr 01 2007
next sibling parent John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:
Reiner,

I pretty much set myself up for the disaster on my last post in the stdio
thread. Dave litterly dissected my innards on that last response, so I'm
missing a lung to breathe and gut to eat at the moment. :) But,
reluctantly, I'll admit I deserved some of it.

But thanks for pointing those things out.  I don't necessarily agree with
all the things here, but I'm satisified to move on simply for lack of
anything more useful to add.  There's more important things to worry
about. I allowed myself to get sucked into something that I really should
not have been a part of.

-JJR


On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:26:03 +1000, Reiner Pope wrote:


 Alexander Panek wrote:

 Please, step back a bit and think twice about what you're going to post, 
 for the sake of productivity and helping each other. There's no point in 
 killing each other, verbally, as we're all grown up and shouldn't 
 actually let ourselves be led by our animal instincts that much.


 
 It's not right to expect John Reimer and kris to be silent without some 
 kind of resolution.  They have aired grievances with a backing, and it 
 is understandable that these should not simply be silenced for the 
 purpose of 'keeping the NG together.' They have said specifically what 
 about Andrei's online presence they found objectionable, so a general 
 counter to such arguments does not do them credit; the correct way to 
 respond to such points is address each of them individually and 
 specifically. Calling it a dead horse because we do not share these 
 objections is unfair to them, as I see it.
 
 
 When I first read the stdio threads, I very much agreed with the JJR's 
 and kris's point of view: Andrei seemed very pushy, seeming to repeat 
 the idea, 'Phobos is now really good at IO, so why isn't Tango.' Andrei 
 raised objection after objection to what Tango did: first speed, then 
 readln discarding the newline; then speed again; then objecting to the 
 call-chained code sample; objecting to Cout(a)(b) in general instead of 
 Cout(a,b); then objecting to C/stdio incompatibility. Taken in context, 
 it is easy to see this as an attack on Tango:
     1. Andrei talks about Phobos improvements.
     2. Andrei starts 3 successive threads questioning Tango's 
 collections, and IO
     3. kris and Sean asked Andrei to submit Tango tickets; Andrei didn't.
     4. Comparisons between Phobos and Tango ensue; Tango appears to 
 perform better, so Andrei's objections could be taken as 'excuses' for 
 Phobos
 
 Could.
 
 This is certainly how I read it at first, so JJR and kris's posts about 
 Andrei seemed spot on. However, on re-reading the stdio threads, with 
 Andrei's posts in particular, his responses seem much more 
 straight-forward: the objections he raises *do* have merit, and he seems 
   to be trying to help avoid bad design decisions in Tango IO -- a tough 
 critique, but an altruistic one.
 
 Yes, he does compare Tango with Phobos at times, like in 
 http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmar
.D&article_id=51365 
 but that can be interpreted as him pointing out how a 'bona fide 
 programmer' would see the choices for D. The comparison is to illustrate 
 the problem, not to flame Tango.
 
 He even completely admitted a mistake to James Dennet: 'If you did, 
 fine. I take that part of my argument back.'
 
 
 So, from the evidence of this alone, Andrei seems not to be following a 
 secret agenda. However, he has (IMHO) made a few mistakes which make his 
 D persona appear very aggressive:
      1. He, apparently without any evidence, implied that Tango's IO is 
 probably not 'up to snuff' -- an allegation which seems to be completely 
 unjustified.
      2. He didn't submit tickets for Tango.
 

 mistake, and I hope that Andrei acknowledges it as such.
 

 constructive design discussion. However, it is possible to understand 
 Andrei's hesitance: having already pointed out the problem, couldn't 
 kris or Sean simply submit the ticket?
 
 In future, I hope that Andrei will do as kris and Sean ask and submit a 
 ticket, if just to show good will.
 
 
 I hope that kris and JJR could re-read Andrei's posts from the last week 
 or so, supposing that Andrei didn't make the mistakes mentioned above. 
 Hopefully, you will agree that in that light, Andrei seems straight-forward.
 
 Hope that helps,
 
 Reiner
Apr 01 2007
prev sibling parent Alexander Panek <alexander.panek brainsware.org> writes:
Reiner Pope wrote:

 Alexander Panek wrote:

 Please, step back a bit and think twice about what you're going to 
 post, for the sake of productivity and helping each other. There's no 
 point in killing each other, verbally, as we're all grown up and 
 shouldn't actually let ourselves be led by our animal instincts that 
 much.


 
 It's not right to expect John Reimer and kris to be silent without some 
 kind of resolution.  They have aired grievances with a backing, and it 
 is understandable that these should not simply be silenced for the 
 purpose of 'keeping the NG together.' They have said specifically what 
 about Andrei's online presence they found objectionable, so a general 
 counter to such arguments does not do them credit; the correct way to 
 respond to such points is address each of them individually and 
 specifically. Calling it a dead horse because we do not share these 
 objections is unfair to them, as I see it.
 [...]


Please, don't get me wrong. This was not anyhow directed, it was meant 
as a reminder for *all* participants. Don't put words in my mouth! ;p
Apr 02 2007