on reputation and lines and putting things places (Re: gcc branches?)

[Tom Lord <lord@emf.net>]

       > Ask some serious questions or read the `arch' source code.
       > I'll be happy to help with your evaluation because I am
       > confident that if you are not foolish about it, I'll "win".

       This is why I distrust arch; I distrust the mentality of the
       authors behind it.  Anyone who says, "certainly, let's discuss
       it, and if you aren't stupid, you'll agree with me," is too
       arrogant to be bothered to work with.

Wow.  That's not what I'm saying.  My bad for casually using the word
"foolish" on a mailing list, I suppose.

I'm saying:

    I already know that you (SC members) are smart.  I already know
    that arch is good and the project is very useful to you.  What's
    been consistently lacking for many months now is a serious
    discussion of the issues and technology domain.  There's a
    communication disconnect, it seems to me.  In this particular
    instance, not repairing that disconnect, will be seen in
    retrospect as foolish.

"foolish" in contexts like this doesn't seem to me to be a personal
judgement about people's competence.  Instead, it's just me, putting
some substantial part of what little good reputation I might have on
the line, explicitly.  It's me saying: I'm not bullshitting here and
I'm not even just speculating -- this is real, and important, and
deserves your focused attention.

I could equally well have said:

	I am confident that if you spend a bit of time digging into 
	these issues -- such that I become confident you really are 
	thinking about the design space and it's implications -- that
	you'll come to agree with me that `arch' is a no-brainer, and
	highly desirable technology for you.

It's a good heuristic for busy project leads to be dismissive by
default.  My "foolish" comment is just stressing my judgement that
this is a case where that default response is inappropriate.  Yes,
yes, I know you don't have time for 99% of anything off your main
track -- I'm insisting that this is in that 1%.  Here, I'll use strong
language (e.g. "foolish"), to demonstrate my insistence.  This is a
bit like that guy (was it Larry Wall?) who (carefully, so as not to
cause injury) threw and smashed a coffee-cup against a wall during a
wet-space meeting -- to signal, unambiguously: "Ok, I'm insisting
now."

So, again: "foolish" in this context is meant to underscore my
confidence -- not to denigrate others.  Where I come from, this
idiomatic usage is common among engineers and understood positively
with a smirk and a "well, ok then".  It's an instance of engineering
machismo functioning properly.  Sadly, it has been my experience that
this elegant use of conversational valence is easily confused with
random email-based flamage.


	So, you're qualified to dispense criticism of /other/ tools,
	but criticism of /your/ tool is "bullshit rumor".

Yes.

Some criticisms (not the ones offered here) of `arch' are not
bullshit.  But neither are they fatal: rather, they are part of why
arch needs just a bit of commercial investment to finish the job.
I have a number of such criticisms myself.  This is part of the transition
from strategic R&D to tactical execution.

Yes, I am quite well qualified to say a thing or two about the
approach being taken by svn.  Under some circumstances, it is my
social duty to speak up.


     I'm pleased with the leadership provided by the SC; they take a
     light touch in a community of volunteers.  If I came home from
     work, sat down to do some volunteer hacking, and was ordered by
     an arrogant, heavy-handed, "you must focus on project <foo> now
     or else" SC, I would cordially invite them to perform a certain
     anitomical impossibility, and take my resources elsewhere.

Well, of course!  I'm not asking the SC to change their relation to
you, an individual.  I am asking them to first, start to understand
`arch' and the related projects I've been advocating and how those
things relate to the project; second, we can start to figure out
together how to relate this to the volunteer _corporations_.

If all goes well, it will become easier for you, as an individual, to
contribute as you like.  Your time is valuable.  `arch' can make
your life more fun, and your contributions more effective.


    I'm still trying to figure out what exactly -- concrete
    suggestions, now -- what exactly you want us to do, given the
    constraints of a) no extra time, and b) no money.

This list is advertised as the best way to communicate with the SC.
The SC is the best way to communicate with the corporations.

"It was uphill both ways.  And we liked it that way.",
-t