Re: The <whatever> developer syndrome

Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Monday 06 October 2003 10:32, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>>I'm not going to have a war of words here, pick a word or three which
>>>means "something one does in their spare time for fun" and I will be
>>>happy :-)
>>
>>And the attitude is the difference here.  If you have a professional
>>attitude, then the term "fun" would probably not apply.  And, I hope that
>>contributors to the project are interested in more than having "fun".
> 
> 
> you've never known a professional who had fun doing what they did? to me fun 
> is not a swear word, nor the epitome of waste; it is (for me) a necessary 
> part of a sane life and the true creative experience. it may be otherwise to 
> you, and that's totally fine (not that it requires my permission, of 
> course ;). i would not demand that you have fun; i also desire for you to not 
> request that i relinquish my enjoyment so as to make *my* experience fit 
> *your* expectations. furthermore, my path (with which you may disagree with) 
> may end up leading to the exact destination you are striving for (and vice 
> versa). 
> 
> there is more than your one answer to the question of life.
> 
Remember, this isn't about having fun.  It is about doing things which are 
not fun.  Not fixing the bugs because it isn't fun is an armature attitude.
> 
>>>Whilst most open source developers have their own agendas as to why they
>>>are developing the things that they are, I think the overwhelming
>>>majority would not do it if it was not pleasurable.
>>
>>Yes, I agree.  They wouldn't do it unless they enjoyed it.  But, this
>>(enjoy) may mean very different things to different people
> 
> 
> indeed...
> 
> 
>>>>as for people[1] who feel compelled to needlessly criticize others
>>>>regularly, openly and without providing constructive, realistic
>>>>solutions/thoughts, they are one of the sorts of people i prefer to
>>>>simply avoid in life: the sort who will tear down any structure no
>>>>matter how beautiful simply to satisfy their own insecurity.
>>
>>To state the obvious: what this means is greatly dependent on his
>>definition of 'needlessly' and 'criticize'.  People have a tendency to fail
>>to understand the actual meaning of 'criticize'.
> 
> 
> actually, you failed to note the important part of the sentence that outlines 
> the intended definitions within this context: "regularly, openly and without 
> providing constructive, realistic solutions/thoughts". i think that's pretty 
> clear and definitive?
> 
As I said, to say that is to misunderstand what criticism is.  You are 
presuming that you statement is true.  But why should we assume that you 
are correct in your presumptuous claim that no constructive solution or 
thoughts are provided.  If you say that then you are saying that it isn't 
criticism.
> 
>>>To be fair, I think that there is a catergory of people who simply do not
>>>quite understand what is and isn't accepted behaviour in open source
>>>development, the usual breach of etiquette being to try and impose their
>>>own personal view of the project on everyone else in the project. And
>>>when they find that people do not take kindly to this, they vent their
>>>frustrations in colorful ways.
>>
>>I think that I understand you to understand that Aaron is doing the exact
>>same thing that he accuses me of: "impose" his "personal view of the
>>project on everyone else" -- the only difference being that his view of the
>>project is different than mine.
> 
> 
> not at all; you are free to experience KDE as you wish and i would not wish to 
> try and change that. at the same time i won't accept bullshit aimed in my 
> direction, and that includes repeatedly hearing about the supposed low level 
> of professionalism from someone who themselves, IMO, lacks professional 
> respect. if you doubt that judgement of yourself, i ask you to find someone 
> who has started or engaged in more flamewars on KDE lists. 

Engineers like to argue -- get used to it.  Call it a flame war if you 
want, but people should figure that if they start an argument with me that 
I will continue it.

> i think it's great that you are contributing to Free Software, but that's a 
> completely orthoganal set of feelings. =)
> 
> 
>>I think that my professional attitude means that the enjoyment I get from
>>programing is different -- it is certainly different from having "fun".  It
>>is the self satisfaction obtained from doing the job well.
> 
> 
> this is where i find a disconnect with you. note that the term "disconnect" 
> does not mean "you are bad" or "i'm better than you", it just means that 
> there is a failure to connect. let me elucidate:
> 
> when you say your "professional attitude" (which is a positive self-judgement) 
> means you get a different enjoyment and that it is the self-satisfaction 
> obtained from doing the job well (which is another positive self-judgement), 
> you imply that those you are contrasting yourself with either don't get 
> satisfaction from a job well done (masochists? poor self image? 
> unsatisfiable?), or just simply don't do the job well. you frame it so as to 
> say that your experience is different than those having "fun", and that those 
> who are having "fun" aren't doing their job well.
> 
I remind you that what we are discussing is those that say that they don't 
fix bugs because it isn't fun.  I think that this is an unprofessional 
attitude.  The professional attitude being the willingness to do things 
which are not fun for the slightly delayed satisfaction of doing the job 
well.  This attitude is part of the culture of engineering.  Perhaps it 
starts in college.  When you write a program for a class assignment, you 
ARE graded on it -- you can't say that you didn't fix the bugs because it 
wasn't fun.

> i happen to know a lot of the people in Free Software, and KDE in particular, 
> who have fun doing what they do and manage to do a damn fine (and 
> professional) job of it _simultaneously_.

In this context, this is a statement contrary to fact or an irrelevant 
statement since the user's complaint is that the bugs don't get fixed.

> this makes me feel that while you may have a good grasp on what makes you 
> tick, you don't have an equal grasp on what makes others tick. which is fine 
> with me, so long as you don't go pointing your misaligned personality 
> crucible anywhere in my general direction.

It isn't just my take on this -- I don't think that I originated this 
thought -- what I think makes some of the developers tick is that they lack 
the self discipline to fix the bugs, because it isn't fun.  They would 
rather go on to additional new features because that is fun.  To me, this 
attitude is lacking in something.

> on the flip side, perhaps this is not what you mean to get across at all. 
> perhaps you are trying to say something profound and profoundly different 
> than what i'm hearing. in which case trying to communicate it differently 
> would be helpful, because i think it's fairly evident that if everyone is 
> misunderstanding you, that your current choice of words simply isn't working 
> for you. i'm not sure i am misunderstanding you, however.

I think that to fully understand the point, you need to think outside of 
the box.  Or, at least stop defending the status quo long enough to try to 
examine it objectively.

--
JRT


Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.