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

[Maciej Stachowiak <mstachow mit edu>]

bjp@primenet.com writes:
> 
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 
> (..much useless flame deleted..)
> 

It wasn't useless flamage, it was constructive criticism about how to
go about writing a Style Guide for Gnome. Note epsecially the comment
you deleted on the difference between a design document and a
standards document and you will see that it is not even worth
considering putting something like "the desktop will have a trashcan"
(approximate quote from you) in a Style Guide.


> 
> 
> Quite the opposite, my friend.
> 
> See..In the original draft of this letter, I had a paragraph at the end
> which stated something to the effect of..
> 
> "Please, READ what I've said here, in detail. Dont skim. I choose my
> words VERY carefully. So, before you run around like a chicken with its
> head cut off, screaming bloody murder that i'm trying to eliminate the
> democratic process necessary to making a good style guide, have another
> look at what I've just wrote."
> 
> You make me wish I hadn't removed it.
> 

I guess you should have left it it. You didn't choose your words
carefully enough to convey any sense of democratic process. (I don't
think the process should be democratic actually, it should be
meritoctratic like all free software hacking).


> I ctrl-K'ed that entire paragraph at the last minute, assuming the people
> who were going to read it had also read what I've been saying all along. 
> I assumed some half-informed dork WOULDN'T walk up all full of piss and
> vinegar, having merely skimmed through what I just wrote, and accuse me of
> being a clueless dictator without an ounce of regard for popular consensus. 
> 
> Looks like I was assumed wrong, in both respects. 
> 
> Try going back, and reading other posts I've made to the mailing list.
> Then, you will know my intentions. After you have done that, please sit
> down and examine this post again, in detail. If you still have questions
> about what I've written, or if you are confused about any part of it, ask
> me to clarify my point, or my stand on an issue. Do NOT run around like a
> chicken with its head cut off claiming i'm an exclusionary psychopath hell
> bent on doing all of this work myself.
> 

All your other posts convey the intention of bringing forth a style
guide full formed and then people can get to comment on it. I have
disagreed with that concept from the beginning. I have yet to see you
agree to keep people involved at every step.

> 
> I'm not typing all of this for your personal amusement; I'm typing it to
> get an important point across. Anything more would be a waste of time, for
> you AND me.
> 
> If you HAD read the post carefully, and had been following the course of
> events which have lead up to it, you would realize that what you've
> accused me of could not be further from the truth. My job is to write a
> Style Guide for GNOME. Not to shove my personal design manifesto down
> yours, or anyone elses throat.
> 

I don't think you _can_ do such a thing. That's why I advised you not
to try, or appear to be trying. When you make comments along the lines
that you will ask Marc Ewing how for your creative control extends,
that really sounds like you think that with his blessing, you can do
anything you want.

> Take some time out, fix yourself a cup of coffee, and look at it again.
> 

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.

 - Maciej Stachowiak