← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Kicad future documentation - first draft


On 09/27/2011 03:33 AM, Martijn Kuipers wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2011, at 12:33 AM, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
>> On 27 September 2011 00:22, Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 09/26/2011 05:04 PM, Fred Cooke wrote:
>>>> Yes it absolutely is constructive criticism, it points out weaknesses, explains why they
>>>> are weaknesses, and explains how to do it better. Sounds EXACTLY like constructive
>>>> criticism to me, Dick. Your name could not be more fitting.
> I agree the last sentence should not be posted in public space. 
> I do not agree that it is not constructive criticism, i.e., I think it is constructive. Let's not forget the original poster to whom Dick replied might not be a native English speaker.
>>> I have de-activated Fred Cooke from this mailing list.
> Judge, Jury and Executioner. This is not very democratic.  

Wrong metaphor.  Think owner, and major shareholder.  More below.  If you like, "bouncer
at a shareholder's meeting".

> In open source (s)he-who-does-the-work-decides is fine with me with respect to general directions, coding decisions, vcs, etc, but this is not a code-problem.

>> I'm very glad! His posts have only ever been derogatory and of no
>> substance. Sorry you've had to deal with it.
> This I also don't agree with. Maybe he has not done as much as you (Brian), Dick or Jean-Pierre, he has been trying to be helpful. 


Since you are a shareholder, I will try and respect your opinion, even as I disagree with
most all of it.

First, the least controversial:  what is constructive criticism? 

1) It does not end with "I do not like it".
2) It respects the feelings of the performer.
3) It uses language like "if you were to do this ..., then here would be the benefit for
all of us..."

I do agree this is more difficult in a foreign language.

Fred has been trying to gain respect through the wrong means, not through contributions
and by being respectful.  I grepped through the commit logs and don't see his name once.

On this list, and in general, *being respectful* earns you good will.  Good will then
eventually earns you respect. 

Around here we don't kick the *hens* that lay the golden eggs.  All are not equal here. 

When decency and respect break down, as has apparently happened here, we would have to
fall back to understanding of ownership.  Think of this mailing list as a shareholder's
meeting, one in which they let customer's attend so long as they behave.

The KiCad project has owners, and users. Some are owners.  Some own more than others. 
Ownership can be measured by previous contributions.  Contributions come in many forms:
ideas, team building, leadership, coding, website administration, documenting, sifting
through bug reports, translating, fixing bugs, building 3-d models, editing wikis, etc.
etc. etc.

Here is my most important point:
those that have succeeded here have all been respectful at the start, this includes
Jean-Pierre, who has been enormously respectful of the other hens.  Wayne, who has been
enormously respectful of the other hens.

Brian, who has been enormously respectful of the hens.  Name after name it's the same
way.  And I cherish every one of them, too many of which will go unnamed just here.  Sorry
Jerry, sorry sorry sorry, as I make my point without listing everyone.

Fabrizio has been enormously respectful of the hens *from the start* and continues to be
so, and is now a hen himself.

The respect of the hens is a self identifying personality trait, that predisposes a person
to succeed here, or to fail if you do not have it.  This does not mean that a person has
to agree with everything.  I am respecting you now, even as I explain my disagreement.

When I tried to protect a hen, Fabrizio, I got *personally* attacked in a malicious,
non-ambiguous, destructive way.  This is not a misunderstanding.   I said that Fred had
already also attacked me through my facebook account.  Putting this to a vote is
non-sensical.   Democracy is not even remotely pertinent here.  Even in law, regardless of
the licensing model used, the project has owners.  It is not a public domain asset.

I am quite shocked that you would even think that I should have to endure potential future
personal attacks from this person, after having invested over a quarter million dollars of
my personal funds into KiCad?  I am also a hen.  I have already earned my good will, and I
did it by being respectful of the hens and contributing.

You have no idea whether I contacted the other major shareholders before taking this
action.  Again, likening this mailing list and this project to a democracy is foolish.  It
is not a democracy.  You yourself are a shareholder. 

Everyone can have a say, even non-owners.  By being respectful, things simply work and we
do not have to focus on ownership.  Amazingly, owners tend to be respectful and listen. 
(Remember, I am saying they only came to be significant owners because they were
respectful in the first place.  Interesting phenomenon that.)

Your opinion is noted.  It seems we disagree.  Fred will not be part of this team so long
as I am, and I have too much invested to leave at this time.  And trust me when I tell you
that I did not have to ask the other major shareholders (hens) because I already knew they
respected me, had already built up that good will, just like I respect them.

The only awkward part here is that I was the victim.  However, I would not hesitate to do
the same thing for any other hen should it ever become necessary.

We clearly do not need to be attacking the hens that lay the golden eggs, as that will
mean less eggs.


Follow ups