| |
In lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw, Franklin W. Cain writes:
> (This is a copy of my reply to Steve...)
>
> Steve,
>
> As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I wanted to fix this problem with
> the mis-match of the pattern numbers. As I mentioned to you on several
> occasions, I am the type of person, who, when he makes a mistake, *cannot* rest
> until I have solved what mistake I've made, and letting the face file go out
> with a mis-matched pattern number was such a mistake.
>
> I understand your decision, but I cannot agree with it, for this reason: You
> *asked* that I refrain from doing this, with the *implied* promise of help in
> getting this done yourself. Please re-read your public post on LUGNet, and try
> to see how that post looked to me. If this was supposed to be a *policy
> change*, it should have *clearly* stated such.
>
> I hereby *contest* your action; I hereby appeal to Tim and Jacob to reverse
> this action of yours.
>
> On a more personal level, I am trying very hard not to take your recent actions
> (plural) personally.
>
> 1. There are still *several* files that have been waiting Admin Review for
> *months* (not just weeks). I finally had to pry feedback out of your for the
> Aviator Cap, I checked my code, saw how I could improve it (per your feedback),
> and I re-submitted it, but you *still* have not reviewed it.
>
> 2. You have revised some primitives I had uploaded and then used in some other
> files, but you haven't reviewed these versions that you've revised (for BFC),
> which means that the other files using these primitives will be "waiting admin
> review", thus effectively held in suspension through no fault of their own.
>
> Notice that I said "review", not "certify".
>
> The "policy" (as posted on the Tracker) is that a file *must* have a "certify"
> vote by "an admin". Since a part won't be released unless it is so certified,
> this implies that the admin has an *obligation* to review each and every file,
> in a timely manner, and either certify it or else hold it. Since there is only
> one admin (you), any "no vote" is effectively the same as a "hold"; even more
> enraging, a refusal to vote, a refusal to evaluate someone's work, is *also*
> the same as a "veto". (In American government, this is called a "pocket
> veto".)
>
> So, with this background, when I saw your *request*, I said, "OK, he wants to
> finish fixing the SW mis-matches in an 'official' manner, so I'll try it his
> way", whereupon, you refused, which I couldn't help but see as you going back
> on your word.
>
> I do not apologize for my actions; I still see them as justified. I do,
> however, deeply regret any hard feelings that I may have caused, as well as any
> extra work for you. But, when I see something that *needs* to be done, and if
> I don't see someone else doing what needs to be done, I *have* to step in, if I
> can fix it by my actions. I've always been this way.
>
> Sincerely,
> Franklin
Hello Franklin, Hello Steve,
I pray so that you stay or return to concordance.
I can not imagine LDraw without you.
I am sure there is nothing personal so there must be a way back to a
friendly cooperative work. The Part Tracker would have no sense if not
friendly and cooperative.
Best regards,
Damien
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | rebuttal...
|
| (This is a copy of my reply to Steve...) Steve, As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I wanted to fix this problem with the mis-match of the pattern numbers. As I mentioned to you on several occasions, I am the type of person, who, when he (...) (23 years ago, 25-Apr-02, to lugnet.cad.dev.org.ldraw)
|
35 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
