Re: Err..To Desktop Or Not To Desktop? (For Tom)

Bowie Poag <> wrote:
>   (A note to reader -- Refer to the "flame free" disclaimer below. I know
>   Tom, Tom knows me. I respect Tom, Tom respects me. I understand Tom..
>   buuuut...I dunno if the reverse is true. :) )
I think it is. maybe I'm not able to express it very well, but I do.

> With all due respect, PLEASE refrain from making those kind of
> assumptions. If you are unclear about an issue, ASK ME. I dont mean
> to be rude, here, Tom.. but this is exactly WHY I read themailing list,
> and thats why I've been chosen to head up this project -- Not you. 
we do have different approaches to the topic. that does include (and is the
result of) different perceptions. so things that are perfectly clear to me
will seem vague and foggy to you. it's not a problem of not-asking or
not-understanding - it's a matter of different povs.

very much like what the townsfolk call "damn fucking shit weather" is the
perfect crop weather for the peasant (right word? my dictionary says so, but
I would have considered it outdated).

> Your understanding of the present creation process for the Style Guideis
> totally distorted, as evidenced by your comments shown above. The public
> is involved BEFORE, AT ALL POINTS DURING, *AND* AFTER the initial document
> has been written -- And to top it off, the public plays an absolutely
> critical role in the REVISION of the document! What more do you want? 

I want that the public CREATES that document. the current process is that
you create it, all the while listening for input from the public and then in
as-yet unspecified cycles put the current version in front of them for
revision. am I right here?

> I mean, jeezus, Tom.. How many more times do I have to keep saying this
> before you get rid of this bizzare idea in your head that I want the Style
> Guide to be a totally closed process?!
I never had that idea in my head. :)

I consider the above a closed process COMPARED to the fully open community
approach that I prefer.

> No, whats going to happen, is that people are going to be CONFUSED about
> which is the *real* Style Guide. If you insist on confusing matters for
> everyone, do it on UseNet. Dont do it on the mailing list. We have a job
> to do here, and I dont need the very people I have to rely upon for input
> becoming confused, because you individually have decided to splinter off,
> and you, individually, have decided you are going to write your own "GNOME
> Style Guide", without being appointed by anyone in authority to do so.

I can open my own mailing list on my own server, that's not the problem.
however, if you have followed the discussions here, you might have noticed
that I'm not the only one who does not agree with your way of doing it. so
either I will do it, or someone else will. maybe both.
in addition, you might be official maintainer or not, but the style guide is
NOT your property. I do not think you are in a position to send people
genuinly interested on working up something in this area off to usenet or

> If you insist on doing all that, DONT refer to it as the "Style Guide".
> Refer to it as an Addendum or as a Compendium to the actual effort. You
> can do whatever you want--Just dont confuse the rest of us with your
> efforts, in the process.
> There is ONE Style Guide effort underway here. Not two, nor three, not
> four. Thats how it has to be. Anything more would immediately turn into a
> confused, hopeless pile of blather, Tom.

that's a problem of naming. fine, I'll name mine "The Rebel Style Guide"
then or whatever is needed to make clear it's not the same document you're
working on.
I don't see a problem of having two documents either. in the end, there will
be one result, but there is no reason to not have two versions being worked
on in different ways. that's the way a lot of r&d goes on - people
working on the same topic, and whoever gets the better result is the one
who'll earn the nobel price that year.

I really, really do not see the problems you are having with someone
creating a second approach.

The universe does not have laws -- it has habits, and habits can be broken.

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