=- Mark Mielke wrote on Mon 31.Mar'08 at 18:28:04 -0400 -= > If you went to the Linux kernel list and presented yourself the > same as Rado, demanding for somebody in authority to offer > volunteers to work on your favourite whizbang feature, the > reaction would be far more hostile than we see here. I see you bring this comparison up again. What kind of situation is it there and here? For you the same? Why do you think I would even need to raise the same issues there? I see the difference that the Linux kernel does not suffer from lack of highly qualified participants/ contributors. They don't need to change because all runs well on its own, because it's self-sustaining and -reproducing _already_, while Netrek is not. Netrek isn't in the same league, so it can't do the same and expect the same success: just focus on the code. Oh, and it's a game, and games are about fairplay more than feature collections. You don't need fairplay with kernels, or have I missed something? > There are people that put up, and there are people that talk. I've put up code, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Sometimes "putting up" _is_ talk. As long as you don't accept this, there is no point in continuing. > I find myself continuously confused over what Rado is asking for > (over months or years?), and see him being critical of James and > existing process. I'm asking for: a) Do something different about fairplay. b) Let the decision power go for others to pick up and do it differently. Neither was accepted, despite interest _and_ offerings beyond my person. > The last time I attempted to contribute code here, I believe the > reaction was generally welcome, with concerns about my choices, > and a request that I come back once I had worked some details out, > or consider keeping the patches separate as they were not > universally appreciated. a) talking about it brought attention to it. Would this recall and the reactions to it have happened without me? They definitly happened _now_ because of me. b) will your contributions change anything about the people involved in netrek total (aside from yourself)? This was the underlying plan even before I spoke up. Anyone has done something about it with lasting success? If the current situation is satisfying for you all, then I stand corrected. > I was not part of an "inner clique" - and beyond being a person > who still reads this list and responds, I don't think I am > currently part of any "inner clique". Right, but how many can afford this amount of commitment these days offered by you some time ago and still demanded these days by the power in charge? It actually meant quite an effort for me to squeeze the time for the P-Server hacking that lead to the meta-server issues discoveries. Seeing how this was welcomed I have to think carefully wether it's worth to try anything again. You might think "yay, Paradise down, better for us", but there might be people in the same situation as I am in the Bronco context. Is it better to pitch some bread crumbs to the starving project raking back at outsiders or make it feed by itself to make it more tolerant for variants again to attract even more players? > It's possible I am stupid and that Rado is so far advanced in > comparison that anything he says will blow right past me > - but I don't truly believe this, and I believe the reaction of > others coincides with mine. *sigh* None of us (2 or even anyone else on netrek-dev) has to be stupid to disagree or misunderstand. Just it takes character to accept that there are other interests and preferences than just the personal, and that not only 1 way can lead to success. (given that "success" could be somehow defined in agreement first) I don't believe that I'm advanced in intellect, but in the vision range. I think in larger scales than what a single individual can do. Because no single individual can change something larger than itself just by itself easily. -- © 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.