Re: Err..To Desktop Or Not To Desktop?

["Juergen A. Erhard" <jae laden ilk de>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

I don't know why I get into this, but here goes... (yes, I've only
been lurking... so what?)

>>>>> "Bowie" == Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com> writes:

[SNIP Maciej's stuff]

    Bowie> A) You obviously haven't read all my posts. I`ve made it clear, here,
    Bowie>    several times that -your- involvement comes in suggesting improvements,
    Bowie>    ideas, or changes to assumed-solid code. It will also come in a series
    Bowie>    of rather large questionairres that will be passed out during the
    Bowie>    upcoming IRC conference(s), for now. 

"When it deems us appropriate..."

    Bowie>    So, you have the mailing list, and you have the ability to register
    Bowie>    vote with the others. The Style Guide, the rest of us have almost
    Bowie>    unanimously agreed, MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE
    Bowie>    IN A FULLY-FORMED STATE. Read: Not *final* draft. Not even *rough*
    Bowie>    draft. Why does it have to be this way? Because if we sat here, and
    Bowie>    publically argued and debated every single line of the Style Guide
    Bowie>    as it were written, the whole process would become so unbelievably
    Bowie>    bogged down that we'd literally be here for years arguing it out.

"Dan Kaminsky" <effugas@best.com> compared this to a movie (edit):

  You can't judge a movie edit until it's done being edited.  "Where's
  X, Y, Z?"  "Oh, not done yet."

Bad analogy.  I'd rather compare the style guide to a movie.  Now, how
many studios would wait for a rough cut (much less a final one) before
checking on the movie?  How many times studio execs come by for
checking the dailies?  And they *know* that 'X, Y or Z' are not done
yet... they know what to expect, and what not to expect.

    Bowie>    Once a fully formed Style Guide (Read: NOT "FINAL DRAFT") has been
    Bowie>    chiseled out, it will be thrown into the woodchipper of public debate.
    Bowie>    Then, we will all have the ability to examine it, comment on its
    Bowie>    strengths and weaknesses, and make the appropriate changes to the
    Bowie>    overall document. Then, not before.

How much would *you* change in the final cut of a movie?  Not
much... that's why there are rough edits, and test screenings.

If it's done it's *done*.  You can't really change fundamental things.
"Oh, but we will get to the in the questionnaires."  Hopefully...

    Bowie> B) If we have everyone involved at *every* step, the process of both
    Bowie>    writing it, and finalizing it, will be so distorted and incoherent
    Bowie>    that it wouldnt even be worth enforcing. A small cluster of people 
    Bowie>    need to sit down, and write out a master document, since coherence
    Bowie>    and clarity of a document are best achieved within small groups.

Back to the movie analogy: this is the film crew.  Now, *we all here*
are the studio.  And you('d) always show us the dailies...

"But this will be a mess" No, as the film crew still has control over
it.  But the studio can chime in if the progress is not as envisioned,
*before* everything's too late (money wasted etc)

It's usually pretty hard to re-shoot scenes *after* filming has
wrapped...  actors might be engaged with other projects, sets are
already torn down...  okay, the analogy is strained here ;-)

    Bowie>    The more people you add to the process, the muddier the waters become.

Many, many directors would wish for total creative control... not many
get it ;-)

    Bowie>    This isnt a case where "The more you have, the better it becomes".
    Bowie>    Once the small group of authors is done, and has a coherent, clear
    Bowie>    document to show, THEN it becomes time for you and the others to pick
    Bowie>    it apart. A coherent, clear document should be able to stand on its
    Bowie>    own. Yes, I wish it were different. I wish I *could* gather a hundred
    Bowie>    people in a room over the course of a few days, and hammer this
    Bowie>    baby out--But I know that to do so, would only render a Style Guide
    Bowie>    of a lesser quality than what would have been made by a smaller, more
    Bowie>    focused group. >Now< just isnt the time to pick it apart, yet. To me,
    Bowie>    its like youre looking at an egg, and complaining that you cant use
    Bowie>    it to make a $35.00 plate of Duck L'Orange for dinner! BE PATIENT. 

Polemics... really, why is it so hard to understand what Maciej wants?
He doesn't want to see/hear every single keypress done by you (or
anyone else for that matter).  You don't even have to post every
sentence you write in the draft to the list.

Why *not* put a *chapter* of the style guide, when it is readable, up
somewhere... with the explicit *understanding* that it will be revised
*a lot* by you (or other members of the 'film crew' (BTW: who's on
that expect you?))

What makes this so unexceptable to you?

[SNIP strange stuff]

    >> 
    >> Guess what, I don't have time for a flamewar. I especialy don't have
    >> time for a flamewar with you, I've read some of yours before and you
    >> always repeat the same things over and over and accuse anyone who
    >> disagrees with you of not having read your post or any of the
    >> thread. This is my last post on the subject. If this list continues to
    >> be as annoying as it has been, I will unsub.
    >> 

I don't have time for this either... that's why I'll go back to
lurking now.

    Bowie> Be my guest. I find the creative process fascinating. Thats why I get
    Bowie> involved. If this same process only serves to annoy you..well, you can
    Bowie> find the directions for unsubscribing from the list at www.gnome.org.

You *really* don't understand (unwilling or unable, that's the
question).  And I'll stop here before I get worse...

- -- 
Jürgen A. Erhard  eMail: jae@laden.ilk.de  phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
   MARS: http://members.tripod.com/~Juergen_Erhard/mars_index.html
      SPACE: Above And Beyond (http://www.planetx.com/space:aab)
 Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- raster@rasterman.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface

iQEVAwUBNb8z3wIG66LugGzRAQElrAf/bgbNA9xZDTcBfpkMLb6H7We4LmwA+Cv0
RLLJr9UZ899YQ/5SN+TRBAyUP9v1vQzebKWs7h0p7nlgDK/C1e+1oA4glzWolfQ7
nAQaeNMY23WMw12QeyZw2No7kWP2zs84qorfOJdxJx+hox1sj10smUIsejBPdcyf
FoLDc/wShO5TaHgcDolzxpxr48qztRJaR8xNeIvOYskuTRxta2LMaG2EL2mVOg/q
XnGowK0z40ziZJaUge7GG8c7235JxsLDDbPT8f8PAbs2rnwBHHg+2Zr6lXtaEzOp
Wncvexnu1wuTFwXMrcoFIwI4pwOsmulMPzfiA3I+IetpCV2t6QfPPg==IC71
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----