Re: Questions

Hi Ali,

Ali Akcaagac <aliakc web de> writes:
> For all respect to your work but sorry but this is weak argument.
> CVSGnome when I started it was more or less a private toy. During
> that time when I wrote it I was more or less selecting the Modules
> on my own choice but still followed the release points. This doesn't
> mean that CVSGnome wasn't building GNOME 2.0.0 at that time - It did
> perfectly and only left out one Package the named documentation.

I think this is more than insultive.  I can only imagine how I would
feel if you wanted Gnome to *promote* CVSGnome if you knowlingly
skipped Serbian translation because "you don't need it", and "it's a
personal toy". 

No, I would be very strong against including it in the release notes
as a way to build Gnome, because, from my perspective, it's not
really possible to build Gnome with it. I've put many hours into it,
that's what made me a Foundation member, and I surely like to think of
it like pushing Gnome forward.

If there are no any ommisions of this kind, I don't see a reason
against including CVSGnome on release pages in the future, but your
attitude ("documentation is no big deal") doesn't warrant that this
won't happen again. IMHO, every part of Gnome is a BIG DEAL, and it's
not yours to undermine others' work.

I don't know the real story behind all this, I know only what I see
and hear today, and while I don't mind you or your project being
considered part of Gnome, I do mind if you state your lack of respect
as something normal and usual.

> Anyways CVSGnome does include the gnome2-documentations shortly after
> the GNOME 2.0.0 release it was added immediately at 14-07-2002 but
> since then no one of the release team cared much enough. It was such
> a little change but could have such a big effect on me and my work
> and the feel to be part of something. As if mentioning it would hurt
> someone.

Well, this is a thing to be expected if you ever said something like
what you said above:
> This doesn't mean that CVSGnome wasn't building GNOME 2.0.0 at that
> time - It did perfectly and only left out one Package the named
> documentation.
                ^^^^^^^^^     ^^^^

If you miss "my" contribution, then *no*, it's not doing it
"perfectly" -- it's not doing it at all for me, and a bunch of other
users.  If you would claim "this builds Gnome perfectly, just skips
the Serbian translation, because most people don't need it", I
would be (very) insulted. It's a contradiction, and it reflects your
current position on the importance of other people's work. That's the
only thing that worries me, though I believe you do mean everything
that's good for Gnome, but it seems as if you're doing it the wrong way.

> I heavily disagree here with the sentence 'Ali disagreed, abusively'
> How can I abuse something ? I wasn't even aware that you belonged to
> the release team that time. 

I'm not a member of the release team, but I repeat: if you said my
work was irrelevant, and still claimed to provide 'perfect' build of
Gnome, I would personally approach release team to disregard your
project, at least officially.  You should not treat release team
members differently from other Gnome contributors.

Hope I didn't sound offensive: I was only trying to explain what
sounds wrong with your words, and why would I react the same way
release team (I guess) reacted.  Perhaps this is just a problem of
"lost in translation", but it doesn't seem like it is.

If your approach was a bit different, if it was like: "yikes, I'm
deeply sorry about missing your work, I never meant to do that", that
would give entirely different picture, and would probably make
release team take a different position.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]