File visualization

Wed Jun 18 11:20:25 BRT 2014

This is such a bad message, I won't go into details.

Only one thing I really had to mention: "Eita doesn't follow his "own 
procedure" and Eita wants everybody else follow It.  Really?". It was 
**not** our **own procedure**, it was a **consensual decision among 
different people.

We don't want to impose **anything**. If we did not follow a procedure 
in your mentioned actionitems, I must thank you for highlighting that 
(this is not crucifixing), so that we can correct this.

It is impossible to discuss with these kinds of acusations implicited in 
the message of Leandro: summing up, he gives the idea that eita wants to 
"impose" things for our own benefit. This is such a profound accusation 
that I refute event to respond to it.

I will say it only one more time here: we are willing and committed on 
**contributing** to a **collectively** construction of better ways for 
this software (noosfero) to be developped.

So I ask you to stop saying that our organization has "hidden agendas" 
or "is against" some person or organization or that we only think about 
our own interests. This is unacceptable, both morally, ethically and 
also it does not correspond to any reasonable fact.

We are not playing here. We want to build collectively for collective 
better results.

As for the rest of this awful message, I prefer to not say anything.

         daniel

Em 18-06-2014 09:25, Leandro Nunes escreveu:
> Looikng for my emails i received notification about ActionItem3119 in 
>  29 april, 01 may, 06 june, 7 june.
>
> The procedure Daniel showed doens't works. Look at this.
>   1. New AI must be created, with sufficient information (not only 
> title but some description)
>
> What is sufficient? It's an abstract concept. So this is a big problem.
>
> Look theses ActionItem made by eita.
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3168
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3169
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3149
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3156
> http://noosfero.org/Development/ActionItem3101
>
> They are clear enough?
> For me no.
>
> Did you saw me crucify Braulio or Eita because of this?
> No. You will never see that.
>
> Because I believe he made his better with the time he had.
>
> This is what I assume.
>
> 2. A message with the proposal is sent to the list
>
> Any of these ActionItem was sent for the list?
> I look for them here I and didn't found anything.
>
> 3. If in 1 week there is no negative reaction, then everything is ok. 
> If there are reactions to the proposal, it should be discussed before 
> sending the code, so that the developper doesn't spend time 
> developping something that won't be accepted. This discussion would be 
> done by the list until a common consensual solution would be found.
>
> If it wasn't sent to the list this step couldn't be done ok?
>
> 4. When the developper concludes the code and makes merge-request, it 
> should be put as a link to the code in the AI page.
>
> This was done.
>
> Theses ActionItem is just some of them that I found quickly here.
> Of course there is a lot of ActionItem like this.
>
> So. Eita doesn't follow his "own procedure" and Eita wants everybody 
> else follow It.  Really?
>
> I am not criticizing Eita because they don't follow the procedure. All 
> the ActionItem that I am interest  I saw the ActionItem description 
> and I make a comment there. Simple like that.
>
> Things are more natural that some people think.
> The ActionItem creation is a way that the project found to make public 
> some ideas about something.
> Some developer could make an excelent contribuition for the project 
> without make an ActionItem and because He doesn't follow the procedure 
> we will not accept. Is this that you propose?
> If a developer do that He made an risk option beacuse his 
> contribuition could not be applied depends on how intrusive it is.
> In other  words the ActionItem creation is a good practice to make 
> your contribuition be accepted more quickly.
> The more intrusive the contribution is greater the need for 
> explanation and detail, sometimes with videos and/or prototypes.
> If something 'wrong' is accepted by the core team It should be changed 
> and It is not the previously discussion in the list that will avoid 
> that these things happen.
> It is important to say that I think all active noosfero developers 
> create the action item before code creation and they naturally put 
> some description about what will be done. Of course that some mistake 
> could be done, but I think procedures have to be emphasized always and 
> We could not crucify people because something wrong happens because we 
> put people away from the project discussion.
> If you insist with something that doesn't work just because is what 
> you think is a good practice you will just make people not respect 
> everything you say.
> First of all you have to convince people that something you think is 
> important after that you could request people to work like you propose.
> Please do that based in solid arguments not based in a community 
> meeting certainly at lest half of the active developers don't 
> participate of it for different reasons.
> Free software doesn't works with only "presencial" meetings.
> I don't think if you pay attention carefully but We have this 
> discussion recurrently. This is because some people accept that 
> procedure like an absolutly truth write in stones just because is 
> convinient as argument in a discussion.
>
> That procedure never exists in fact.
>
> Wake up people. You will not change a way how free software ever works 
> proposing a boring way based on more works for developers to apply 
> improvements or fix bugs.
>
> If you guys want's to live a ilusion go ahead.
> I am off ;)
>
>
> PS: I will not waste my time with this loop discussion anymore.
>
> -- 
> Dois Axé!!!
>
> -----
> "Comece fazendo o que é necessário, depois o que é possível e de 
> repente você estará fazendo o impossível."
>                                    São Francisco de Assis
> Leandro Nunes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noosfero-dev mailing list
> Noosfero-dev at listas.softwarelivre.org
> http://listas.softwarelivre.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/noosfero-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.softwarelivre.org/pipermail/noosfero-dev/attachments/20140618/22bc23de/attachment-0001.html>