Nathaniel Talbott [mailto:nathaniel@talbott.ws] :
I think what we have is more than one person who is annoyed that
my ideas are not something they can just swat down, so long as I
can code them myself.
Not sure how I missed this earlier: this has nothing to do with the
responses that I've made, Sean.
That's honestly what I think, that people are EXTRA annoyed that
I went and did it for myself. It took the power away from you,
didn't it? You can't tell someone "no, we won't do that" when
they can just go do it themselves.
You have a highly inflated sense of your importance to others to
think that others are annoyed that you simply coded up what you did.
Others are annoyed at the tone you have taken -- I am, most
certainly -- and have other comments about your libraries -- I have,
most certainly -- but we aren't about to tell you that you can't
just go do what you did. Rather, I am suggesting that *competition*
in this case may not be the best approach, where *cooperation* works
far better. (It's difficult to say this, sometimes, as Instiki and
Ruwiki are obviously in "competition", but they also have different
design philosophies -- however, I think that were there convergences
that could be found, we would cooperate in what we have.)
I personally am EXTRA glad that you took the initiative to go and
code it yourself. I am getting EXTRA annoyed at your attitude and
tone, though. I am worried that many will not look at or use your
contributions simply because of your demeanor on this list, and I
think that would be a loss.
Thank you, Nathaniel, for saying the words that I was trying to say
earlier, but failed. +1.
-austin
···
On Jun 14, 2004, at 13:25, Sean O'Dell wrote:
--
austin ziegler * austin.ziegler@evault.com
Nathaniel Talbott [mailto:nathaniel@talbott.ws] :
>> That's honestly what I think, that people are EXTRA annoyed that
>> I went and did it for myself. It took the power away from you,
>> didn't it? You can't tell someone "no, we won't do that" when
>> they can just go do it themselves.
You have a highly inflated sense of your importance to others to
think that others are annoyed that you simply coded up what you did.
Others are annoyed at the tone you have taken -- I am, most
certainly -- and have other comments about your libraries -- I have,
most certainly -- but we aren't about to tell you that you can't
just go do what you did. Rather, I am suggesting that *competition*
in this case may not be the best approach, where *cooperation* works
far better. (It's difficult to say this, sometimes, as Instiki and
Ruwiki are obviously in "competition", but they also have different
design philosophies -- however, I think that were there convergences
that could be found, we would cooperate in what we have.)
My only concern is for myself. I released celsoft.com/Battery and
celsoft.com/Interface thinking some people may find them useful, but mainly
just for myself.
You should try finish up some of YOUR unfinished open source projects, or at
least get working pages going. It feels good.
> I personally am EXTRA glad that you took the initiative to go and
> code it yourself. I am getting EXTRA annoyed at your attitude and
> tone, though. I am worried that many will not look at or use your
> contributions simply because of your demeanor on this list, and I
> think that would be a loss.
Thank you, Nathaniel, for saying the words that I was trying to say
earlier, but failed. +1.
I think more than a few of you are too busy patting yourselves on the back,
you really ought to put your head down and finish up your work. Your
releases look terrible, particularly, Ziegler.
Sean O'Dell
···
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 12:14, Austin Ziegler wrote:
I wouldn't worry about that point too much. It's a pretty simple
package (not to belittle it) and if Nathaniel is interested in the
functionality, he knows where to find it.
From what Sean has said, co-operation isn't the best option to satisfy
his requirements, and that's reasonable.
Gavin
···
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 5:14:55 AM, Austin wrote:
Rather, I am suggesting that *competition* in this case may not be
the best approach, where *cooperation* works far better.
Thank you for respecting my own approach. I was beginning to feel as if no
one had the concept of respect for other people's ways of coding and
contributing.
Sean O'Dell
···
On Tuesday 15 June 2004 15:38, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, 5:14:55 AM, Austin wrote:
> Rather, I am suggesting that *competition* in this case may not be
> the best approach, where *cooperation* works far better.
I wouldn't worry about that point too much. It's a pretty simple
package (not to belittle it) and if Nathaniel is interested in the
functionality, he knows where to find it.
>From what Sean has said, co-operation isn't the best option to satisfy
his requirements, and that's reasonable.