=- James Cameron wrote on Wed 27.Feb'08 at  9:46:45 +1100 -=

> > I gave you source code.
> 
> I repeat, because it wasn't in the form of a patch, it didn't hit
> my mental model.

I've grasped your explanation of your perfect world already before,
but you obviously don't realize that there is not only your way of
conveying and discussing source code (or anything for that matter).

> You have to compete against all the other patches I get.

You described your personal ideal way of dealing with it.
Fine, for you.
I don't depend on keeping up with your standards, it was an offer
for the common good.
If you don't like my contribution below your ideal form, ignore it.
I hoped there were some more parties interested in this matter than
just the 2 of us. Apparently I was wrong.

Are you the only person that I have to convince?
If so, then because you're the only one who decides?
Or because you're the only interested?
(besides me)

> So what do you have in the way of information technology assets
> and operating system software? If I knew that I could recommend
> actions to remedy your lack of darcs.

Whatever it is, it (and all noise around it) takes more than it took
pasting the simple change.

You're focused so much on formalities, that you miss the progress in
the matter of code.
I guess the same applies to me for the matter of organisation.
I've reduced my desires about my ideal and would be happy about any
progress, maybe once you can, too.

> > So de-facto you lead the crowd, just reject any official
> > responsibility to go all the way.
> 
> Official? Responsibility? I'm not elected. Nobody gives me any
> responsibility. I merely out-do the others. A social meritocracy.

meritocracy:
"a system in which the talented are chosen and moved ahead on the
basis of their achievement 2 : leadership selected on the basis of
   intellectual criteria"

I'm sorry for my insecurity, does your explanation match or miss
this definition?
It sounds like contradiction to me.

> Part of why I out-do the others is that I process patches and
> review code really fast. Makes it harder for new participants
> though, I see.

This might be a problem: you quickly pick up any issue, solve it
your way, and nobody else feels the need to participate.
So it often ends up not only at your sole mercy, but also on your
workload. You probably can handle it, while others can't.

Could you handle key-management (i.e. client approval) with the same
efficiency, since it's basically about code control, given how well
you're organized for code review?

> > > > Future == intention/ reasons.
> > > 
> > > That's an interesting viewpoint. I didn't see a contradiction.
> > 
> > Fine, enlighten me then what you mean with "I'm more interested
> > in {...} the future".
> 
> Sorry, I can't remember what I meant now. I see no need to
> post-justify what I said.

Nobody asked for justification, I was just curious how our
perceptions differ with regard to "future".

-- 
© 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.