kicad-developers team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: About quality of discussion
Vesa Solonen <vsolonen@...>
Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:27:44 +0200 (EET)
Alpine 1.99 (SOC 1136 2008-08-12)
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Among people, it is not unusual to disagree. Just ask my wife.
Absolutely. Disagreements are usually about opinions and feelings, not
about proven facts. In that kind of relations the stakes are a bit higher
than in Kicad (with all the respect to the project) and facts don't
always mix beautifully with feelings so there is no other advice given
to me than being polite and surrender early enough ;)...
That's also a subject where you'll have more experience than I, I guess.
Anyway all my best wishes to your personal life. (Friendly way, take an
> When that happens a discussion can ensue. This has happened.
Agreed very much. My concern was just _how_ to conduct that discussion.
> I find the list quite respectful in that regard. Wayne, Jean-Pierre
> and I all agreed there would be a temporary solution for this release
> followed by a long term solution which pushes the scaling down into wxDC.
There must be some misunderstanding on my part and others. I wasn't aware
that defining working zoom factors is temporary. I was working towards
general solution that would be usable also later on and also implementable
right now. Continuum way.
> The ensuing discussion about the temporary solution has gone beyond
> practical now.
Agreed again. The wiser ones have already shut up.
> As a person contributes more, the amount of respect and consideration
> that a person should expect here will escalate. Realize this is not a
> democracy, nor is any open source project. Most use limited write
> access to the repository to maintain control. It is my theory that
> Linus is in control of linux only because he controls his tree, and that
> his tree is recognized as the authentic linux source. It would be a
> mistake to think this is a democracy.
If one reads lkml or kernel development guide, it becomes very apparent
that the system is meritocracy. It is the only system that works in
factual debate and advances the state of the art. In history there are
numerous examples like ancient philosophers, all notable scientists etc.
So it's not too difficult to see why the same is used in academia. There
one has to put well reasoned arguments along every claim and be prepared
to be proven wrong. It's an honour to be proven wrong as it makes you the
one who pushed someone to think more.
If one slips from that rigor, like claiming cold fusion without ways to
reproduce the experiment. Then someone ponders the dilemma to conclude
flashes to be cavitation bubles collapsing and backs that up with
reproducible experimental data, it doesn't help at all to be the known
scientist and demand to be taken seriously. The reason to chuckles on the
coffee table is just made.
> Until you contribute more than 10 lines of code, please don't feel that
> your (dare I say) "vote" is equal to those having spent years
> contributing. I think you may have detected that Jean-Pierre is well
> respected here, and that supports what I am saying about respect being a
> weighting factor on opinions offered.
There was some contributions before I got myself on the list. I'm not
demanding anything special treatment here. I'm also _not voting_ here. I
can very well see why Jean-Pierre is respected. He does quite through
reasoning in every discussion, even though it will use his valuable time.
I also want to applaud him for explaining stuff despite the translation
work needed (My guess he is thinking in french ;) with english outcome).
He also said that maybe I should be on the list after bugging him a couple
of months and sending small patches. The respect comes from manners and
I also very much like to emphasize that all this had nothing to do with
opinions. Those are things other can not deny or prove wrong from ones
> If after the release, you want to take up and be involved in the design
> of a permanent solution to the zoom issue, then you are welcomed.
I'm delighted. I also would like to see your Python work going well.
I was only attempting to create a more flexible zoom system to allow for
non integer zoom levels. I have since figured out why the "jumping"
occurs. Because Kicad calculates all of it's scaling outside of
wxWidgets, the scroll bars don't have any idea of scaling in Kicad
For Wayne I have to say that I'm very sorry if it seemed to be criticism
to your fine implementation. It was and is not. Some terms got messed in
'Scrolling' meant scrolling mouse wheel back and fort to get zooms in and
out in sequence. Not behavior on scroll bars, I haven't even tested them.
'Jumping zoom' referred to perceptible depth motion. If zoom factor
alternates between indexes, the 'depth' jump alternates too.
The ten pixel jitter you mention was nothing I could mind too much in a
temporary solution. My goal was to make zoom factor system that makes
use of the full potential of your code.
I'll put an end here now, and hope to get some life to the library style
thread. With academic rigor to claims and their arguments and proofs,
unless it is about opinions.