judgment

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

judgment

Paul Franklin-5
This is a long message, so read it at your leisure.

I've always wondered why, when people just disappear from
gramps, never saying good-bye, never saying anything, no
word at all.  So I am not going to do that.

I feel strongly that some code I wrote should be put into
gramps.  But others disagreed.

One in October, so he reverted it.  That's when I stopped
commenting on the bug tracker, and the gramps-devel list,
and making commits.

One more recently.  (Both made GitHub comments.  But they
can be edited at any time, or deleted, and aren't archived
on Nabble or indexed by Google.  I dislike GitHub comments.)

So since both felt that way, it seems to me that my judgment
as to what should be in gramps is clearly no longer trusted.

When both suggested that I make pull requests, so any change
I wanted could be evaluated, I had more evidence, as well as
another reason to want to stop contributing.

There were no such things as "pull requests" when I was
offered the ability to make changes to gramps some years
ago.  As I have mentioned on this list, I don't want to make
them, for personal reasons.  I said it most recently some
months ago when it was proposed that everybody should make a
pull request for anything they wanted to do to gramps.  The
proposal was dropped but clearly hasn't been forgotten.

I wonder if you looked backwards in a "git log" how many
times you'd find where one developer reverted another
developer's commit?  I don't recall that happening, years
ago.  I think that people only reverted their own commits.
Or ones which killed gramps.

I don't think it should be required -- and enforced -- that
code is done in some particular way, if the same goal can be
accomplished in some equivalent way.

Especially when gramps has so few active people anymore, I
thought -- and still think -- that any volunteer shouldn't
be discouraged.  Just the opposite should be the norm.

The overall goal should be to improve gramps and I don't
think it should be just one person's way, one person's
opinion, one person's coding style, which must be done.

(One example of that is whether "imports" should be relative
or absolute.  It doesn't matter to Python, they both work.
And the topic is not mentioned in PEP-08, the official
Python style guide.  But because there's a "policy" on the
gramps wiki, only one way is allowed for gramps code.)

I can think of other cases in the last year or so where code
was written, days were spent, but the developer was told he
had to do it another way.  The developer dropped it instead.

I've never cared for bureaucracy, anywhere, especially when
I view it as subjective and arbitrary.  I remember a former
manager I worked for saying "don't ever let bureaucracy
stand in the way of progress."

Whenever I made any commit, I felt it would improve gramps.
But when my commit was reverted, he probably felt it didn't,
and that he doesn't trust me to make changes to gramps.

About a year ago some pylint changes I made were reverted.
As a result I stopped making any pylint changes at all, and
wouldn't have made any, under him, if I was staying.

That kind of subjective judgment may be satisfying to the
person who makes it, but is gramps really better off?
Wouldn't any improvement have been better than none?

Especially if a volunteer decides that after enough such
cumulative subjective judgments that life is too short,
there is no reason to continue under such circumstances.

If I feel he won't accept my changes, or nit-pick every one,
then I don't feel like contributing.  It's that simple.

That's the most likely possibility.  But another is that he
got mad for comments I made when he posted a message four
days before I did my commit asking about a proposed change
he wanted to make.  I argued that since it wasn't fixing any
bug but only enhancing gramps, making it work differently,
that it belonged in "master" and not in the gramps50 branch.
(I didn't say it shouldn't be done, or "do it differently.")
A day or two later he reverted my commit.  Perhaps it's a
coincidence.  I'll never know.  Certainly he'll deny it.

The following comment was made deep down in
http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/OPINIONS-DESIRED-Updated-Addon-manager-PR-td4679778.html
:

"As I have said previously, design decisions are made by
Brian, Benny and myself - they are not a result of a public
vote.  However, if a majority of developers don't like this,
then I am happy for us to discuss changing the decision
making process.  Perhaps an elected administrator or some
kind of committee would be a better approach?"

Perhaps it would.

But as well as no public vote there is no public process.
That'd be better than a "star chamber" approach, I'd claim.
If such private multi-administrator discussions even happen.

It was suggested that perhaps I am suffering from volunteer
burn-out.  Perhaps I am.  Or perhaps somebody else is.

But it's certainly true that leaving gramps will be like
tearing out a piece of my heart.  Gramps has meant a lot to
me these last years.  I liked the feeling of community.  I
think of most of you as friends, even if I've never met most
of you.  I liked the idea that I was making the world a
little bit better, even if it was only a tiny bit of the
world.  So I was happy to contribute to gramps, as best I
could.  It was a big part of my life.

Perhaps I'll look into gramps again, in a year, or two, or
three.  Perhaps things will have changed by then and I can
ask if I would be welcome to come back.  Who knows.

(This email account is only used for gramps-related things,
so it will be relatively easy to just stop reading it.
Google says I have 15GB of available storage (I'm using 1%)
so it will just pile up in case I ever want to read it.)

So this is farewell.  I will miss most of you, and I wish
you only the best, with gramps and the rest of your life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: judgment

prculley
I'm sorry to see you go.
I too have felt annoyance and anger at the way some of the my contributions were rejected.  I dread the words "I don't like...".  But I have not given up yet.

If the top level owners of Gramps are reading this, you might want to take note that this is the second major developer that has been driven away; I would think that might suggest that something is wrong.

I had hoped that if someone takes on issue that show up in bug reports, and are directly experienced, to the extent of creating fixes that work, that they would be given serious consideration.  Not closed and left unfixed.  Example: https://github.com/gramps-project/gramps/pull/487

Paul C.  (275 commits since 2015)

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 8:38 PM, Paul Franklin <[hidden email]> wrote:
This is a long message, so read it at your leisure.

I've always wondered why, when people just disappear from
gramps, never saying good-bye, never saying anything, no
word at all.  So I am not going to do that.

I feel strongly that some code I wrote should be put into
gramps.  But others disagreed.

One in October, so he reverted it.  That's when I stopped
commenting on the bug tracker, and the gramps-devel list,
and making commits.

One more recently.  (Both made GitHub comments.  But they
can be edited at any time, or deleted, and aren't archived
on Nabble or indexed by Google.  I dislike GitHub comments.)

So since both felt that way, it seems to me that my judgment
as to what should be in gramps is clearly no longer trusted.

When both suggested that I make pull requests, so any change
I wanted could be evaluated, I had more evidence, as well as
another reason to want to stop contributing.

There were no such things as "pull requests" when I was
offered the ability to make changes to gramps some years
ago.  As I have mentioned on this list, I don't want to make
them, for personal reasons.  I said it most recently some
months ago when it was proposed that everybody should make a
pull request for anything they wanted to do to gramps.  The
proposal was dropped but clearly hasn't been forgotten.

I wonder if you looked backwards in a "git log" how many
times you'd find where one developer reverted another
developer's commit?  I don't recall that happening, years
ago.  I think that people only reverted their own commits.
Or ones which killed gramps.

I don't think it should be required -- and enforced -- that
code is done in some particular way, if the same goal can be
accomplished in some equivalent way.

Especially when gramps has so few active people anymore, I
thought -- and still think -- that any volunteer shouldn't
be discouraged.  Just the opposite should be the norm.

The overall goal should be to improve gramps and I don't
think it should be just one person's way, one person's
opinion, one person's coding style, which must be done.

(One example of that is whether "imports" should be relative
or absolute.  It doesn't matter to Python, they both work.
And the topic is not mentioned in PEP-08, the official
Python style guide.  But because there's a "policy" on the
gramps wiki, only one way is allowed for gramps code.)

I can think of other cases in the last year or so where code
was written, days were spent, but the developer was told he
had to do it another way.  The developer dropped it instead.

I've never cared for bureaucracy, anywhere, especially when
I view it as subjective and arbitrary.  I remember a former
manager I worked for saying "don't ever let bureaucracy
stand in the way of progress."

Whenever I made any commit, I felt it would improve gramps.
But when my commit was reverted, he probably felt it didn't,
and that he doesn't trust me to make changes to gramps.

About a year ago some pylint changes I made were reverted.
As a result I stopped making any pylint changes at all, and
wouldn't have made any, under him, if I was staying.

That kind of subjective judgment may be satisfying to the
person who makes it, but is gramps really better off?
Wouldn't any improvement have been better than none?

Especially if a volunteer decides that after enough such
cumulative subjective judgments that life is too short,
there is no reason to continue under such circumstances.

If I feel he won't accept my changes, or nit-pick every one,
then I don't feel like contributing.  It's that simple.

That's the most likely possibility.  But another is that he
got mad for comments I made when he posted a message four
days before I did my commit asking about a proposed change
he wanted to make.  I argued that since it wasn't fixing any
bug but only enhancing gramps, making it work differently,
that it belonged in "master" and not in the gramps50 branch.
(I didn't say it shouldn't be done, or "do it differently.")
A day or two later he reverted my commit.  Perhaps it's a
coincidence.  I'll never know.  Certainly he'll deny it.

The following comment was made deep down in
http://gramps.1791082.n4.nabble.com/OPINIONS-DESIRED-Updated-Addon-manager-PR-td4679778.html
:

"As I have said previously, design decisions are made by
Brian, Benny and myself - they are not a result of a public
vote.  However, if a majority of developers don't like this,
then I am happy for us to discuss changing the decision
making process.  Perhaps an elected administrator or some
kind of committee would be a better approach?"

Perhaps it would.

But as well as no public vote there is no public process.
That'd be better than a "star chamber" approach, I'd claim.
If such private multi-administrator discussions even happen.

It was suggested that perhaps I am suffering from volunteer
burn-out.  Perhaps I am.  Or perhaps somebody else is.

But it's certainly true that leaving gramps will be like
tearing out a piece of my heart.  Gramps has meant a lot to
me these last years.  I liked the feeling of community.  I
think of most of you as friends, even if I've never met most
of you.  I liked the idea that I was making the world a
little bit better, even if it was only a tiny bit of the
world.  So I was happy to contribute to gramps, as best I
could.  It was a big part of my life.

Perhaps I'll look into gramps again, in a year, or two, or
three.  Perhaps things will have changed by then and I can
ask if I would be welcome to come back.  Who knows.

(This email account is only used for gramps-related things,
so it will be relatively easy to just stop reading it.
Google says I have 15GB of available storage (I'm using 1%)
so it will just pile up in case I ever want to read it.)

So this is farewell.  I will miss most of you, and I wish
you only the best, with gramps and the rest of your life.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Gramps-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gramps-devel