Moin, here, too, re-ordered by relevance.

=- Jeffrey Watts wrote on Fri 24.Aug'07 at 17:36:14 -0500 -=

> In fact, what I keep seeing is person after person responding to
> the effect of "I'm not going to talk to you any more".
> {...}
> You have to come to them, you can't expect them to come to you.

It's a pity, I thought I had.
How else should I have done it?

> They don't agree with you, you're not happy with that.

Hum... you're wrong there (as so many others).
I have my answers now, that's all I've been looking for.
A "borg-control" system would have been nice bonus, but I don't need
that personally.
I only needed clarification on how to deal with the term or what
people _really_ want to do about it beyond complaining.

> Contribute on the Paradise side.
> {...} and stop harassing the Bronco/Sturgeon guys about stuff that
> has nothing to do with your efforts.

My efforts were not limited to Paradise alone, since I don't see
it isolated. And I like to play Bronco, too, even though I 
prefer others.
 Even if I were the most active Paradiser in all regards, this
wouldn't affect the questions about Bronco alone. Paradise is just 1
client among others (in the past or to come).

> I think you ought to contribute before calling for changes.
> This is a meritocracy, not a cheerocracy.
> {...} To clarify, in a meritocracy people respect those that add
> more than just talk.
> {...} Given that you've only been talking and haven't really added
> much to the general effort, {...}


That would be which?
As I see it, what I've been looking for needs exactly this talking,
since they're social tasks rather than technical ones.

I wasn't cheering, but asking and responding, before I would have
had tried things that could have provided merit (or possibly harm).
In unclear terrain I ask first, then shoot.
Both, to avoid damage _and_ ask for help, especially when a task
can't be done by 1 alone.

> People in Open Source projects don't want feedback from people who
> have no stake.
> {...} your ideas and concerns {...} is of no concern to anyone
> here, as you haven't earned any credibility in the community.

So (new) ideas have to wait for some probing time of the submitter
in another field before they have a chance to make it through?

What kind of stake/ credibility is required for the addressed
issue(s)? It's not like I was the 1st to raise them: I just
addressed them more explicitely or offered solutions.

It doesn't mean necessarily that a quality in field A qualifies you
automatically for field B. And there are cases where somebody can
contribute more to B (which is discussed) than A (which everybody is
used to look at exclusively but not relevant now).

> {...} your frequent and voluminous responses aren't helping
> anyone, and are only serving to alienate others from yourself.
> {...} or react with hostility whenever you call out for drastic
> changes.
> {...} Stop with your arguing, everyone is done with these droll,
> circuitous, and tedious discussions.

I've understood that, I knew before that would happen, I also hoped
to produce some boost in participation by those "drastic" changes.
- I started simple.
- nobody was forced to read or answer, everyone could ignore
	subjects not interested in (or any posts from me).
- those who've read or responded have spent time to participate with
	reasonable questions or wrong conclusions.
- I assumed they deserved adequate responses to the best of my
	ability to make it as short as possible while as detailed
	as necessary.

Didn't they deserve it?

- If somebody saw circuits, my (unwanted) delays gave time to step in
	to resolve them to avoid reiterations, nobody did.

For those who participated, I'm sorry that I've run out of time and
it resulted in batch form, so that everyone had to take it in doses
of own judgement rather than spread among smaller pieces.

I was trying to suit all, but my preference was to suit those
participating actively.
 I couldn't do better at that time.

> I'd like to have further discussions with you Rado, but keep in
> mind that I am busy with many other things in my life and if you
> keep arguing incessantly on these mailing lists I'll be forced to
> not interact with you.

Heh... why do you think it's different for me?
If I hadn't been too busy, I'd have responded more recipient-friendly.
What I started I have to finish ... somehow, be it success or
failure, but without just stopping to respond. I don't forfeit when
I'm willing to commit myself and only few _real_ opportunities appear.

In the past years conditions weren't matching to get me started to
finally do something again, now there was: I had some time left over
and some background activity generally in netrek, this time
promising enough to try.
I started this at the beginning of this year when I still had time
to do something before I wouldn't have it anymore (now).

Because it was a rare opportunity I tried pushing it hard.
Too hard obviously. Sorry.

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.