[documentation] commentary

Tue Sep 9 13:23:06 UTC 2008

On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 12:34 AM, christopher calicott <purrin at binary.net> wrote:
>
> On Sep 8, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Steven Peck wrote:
>>
>> Drupal has always been at the point of gaining momentum.  This is not
>> a new thing, this is not a new experience.  People can get down to
>> work, but one does not jump in without communications.  If you have a
>> plan, propose it, seek input, refine, seek consensues and agreement.
>> I would hope these basics are shared across many open source projects,
>> they have certainly been so on the ones I have participated in.
>
>
> This is a paraphrase of what you said in response to a similar comment
> someone made at the documentation team talk in Boston, blowing them
> off publicly, as well.   I'm sorry if you can't see that it is
> different in 2008/9 than it was in 2006/7, but it is.  I've been
> passively observing for quite awhile now, and media coverage, rate of
> adoption, et cetera, is accelerating.  That's a fact.

Actually there are some signs that the project is losing momentum.
They conflict with other signs, but there is a reason that Dries has
been mentioning the importance of maintaining and improving momentum
is so that we don't lose what we've got.

Steven's point, and I agree with him, is that the argument "Drupal is
different _now_ so we have to do things different now" or "Drupal is
really gaining momentum and this one thing will kill that momentum" is
a pretty weak argument unless you have some data to prove it.  The
only argument for or against a change is "this will help Drupal" and
most people agree with that simple goal - it's the implementation
details where we disagree.

> It's one thing
> to describe to people wanting to share an idea the path to adding
> materials, but it's entirely another to quash their helpful spirit by
> shooting down their observation of how timely things need to be
> handled and throwing up a barrage of "red tape" about process and
> procedure without genuinely trying to assist them, in my opinion.

I've never seen Steven do this.  I've always seen him say "oh, you
want to help with docs?  great, I've immediately given you the role
which gives you permission to make changes.  If you've got a bigger
change then let's discuss before you do it."  If the discussions left
you feeling like nobody liked your idea or you weren't able to garner
the necessary support, then either the idea or the means of garnering
support were faulty.  But falsely blaming someone else for that
failure is not a successful way to interact with a community.

> When a community is smaller, things can work differently than when it
> grows much larger, and that /is/ taking place.  I'm not sure why you
> have such an ongoing issue with that point about growth rates.  Dries
> himself - in his keynote in Boston - had charts and graphs and talked
> at some length about past CMS's and pivotal moments in their growth
> and their  falling into disuse because of not making the right moves
> and responding properly to their growth at the right time...

This is all very true, but...what makes you so sure that your idea is
the right idea at the right point?

> I genuinely do not like having words put in my mouth.  This is
> childish, blown completely out of proportion, and I'm not going to
> have someone dictating to me what to say and when and where to say
> it.   I'm not apologizing for something I did not say or for something
> I did say that is true.  I never attacked your "character" or
> mentioned "reprehensible behavior."   That's just silly.    I think
> you've made it pretty clear, though, that you do make issues a
> personal matter, Steven, and oftentimes, very quickly so.   I make
> comments about how people might feel about certain responses to
> sharing ideas and somehow I'm making a public accusation against your
> character as a person?  Unbelievable..

You said that you have a fear of reprisals.  Either substantiate where
that fear comes from or it is slanderous libel. Maybe Steven has
reacted more strongly about that point than you would have, but he
obviously takes his reputation very seriously and I don't blame him.

Also, you can't say that Steven "makes issues a personal matter" when
you started this.  You made it a personal matter - he responded.

> I don't have any interest in anything, here, other than helping the
> Drupal community as a whole, which I do however I can.

Great!  That's the same goal that we all have. We just see different
ways to help the project.

>  Every time
> something comes up, though, and you're around, you're right there...
> putting your $.02 in and putting out ill vibes when I have something
> to say.  I seriously doubt that I'm the only person who has
> experienced this vibe.
>
>
> I'll give this another shot and repost what I had originally said that
> apparently caused such a strong reaction:
>
>  >I tend to just be silent on the list because Documentation discussion
>  >at DrupalCon Boston seemed, frankly, a little "we don't do things that
>  >way around here..." and it sucks making helpful suggestions and
>  >getting shot down, so I just keep fairly quiet and edit bad grammar,
>  >et cetera, occasionally.  I really would like to see people like me
>  >having a much more clear path to doing bigger edits and additions to
>  >documentation, without fear of reprisal.   Having said that, if anyone
>  >has a place in mind to include some ideas/additions on this topic,
>  >please let me know and I'll get on it this week.
>  >
>  >have a good day,
>  >-=- christopher
>
> It was a legitimate concern when I wrote it.  It's even more one now.
> Organizations improve by having people with differing points of view
> sharing - without fear of reprisal - and working out the differences
> to the best possible effect.   I know that the Drupal community can do
> it.   I just fear that this sort of attitude I'm met with here isn't
> the same that any other newcomers are getting.  It makes things very
> uncomfortable, indeed.
>

So, you reiterated your claim without any more proof of it. Why?
Criticism of an idea is not reprisal. Reprisal is actively blocking an
account or defaming a person on a mailing list with hundreds of
people...

What we are having in this thread and in the other threads I have seen
is frank discussion about the merits of different ideas. Your claim is
that people don't contribute major changes to the docs because they
fear reprisals.  You've since refined that to something like "Steven
responds quickly and his messages include an ill vibe."  Steven (and
others) are disagreeing with your claim, providing counter evidence,
and asking for a clarification or retraction.

There are people who tend to be encouraging with every piece of
feedback and others who see that as sugarcoating of criticism and are
insulted by it and refuse to do it themselves - I even use both
methods depending on who I'm interacting with. Learning to
successfully deal with all those different personalities is part of
the challenge and fun of working in Open Source.

Regards,
Greg

-- 
Greg Knaddison
Denver, CO | http://knaddison.com | 303-800-5623
Growing Venture Solutions, LLC | http://growingventuresolutions.com