Subject:
|
Re: Am I the only person who finds Lego CAD systems infuriating?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:08:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
648 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Calum Tsang wrote:
> In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Richie Dulin wrote:
>
> > It’s easy to mock the 'administrivia and committees'. Doing so mocks the people
> > who serve on the committees, the people who establish them, the people who vote
> > for or appoint them, the people who support them, and the work that they do.
>
> Yes and?
Exactly. It's easy to mock. I've mocked committees before. Heck, I thought the
LPRC was an April Fools joke - and look how right I was about that.
> > It’s easy to imply that the 'administrivia and committees' get in the way of
> > improving functionality. I would ask, can that argument be turned on its
> > head? Is it possible that the lack of appreciation of the importance of
> > 'administrivia' and lack of support for the committees is poisoning the
> > atmosphere and driving people who might meaningfully contribute away, in turn
> > delaying the development of the basic usability?
>
> Listen, any rtlToronto member will clearly tell you I'm the most administrative
> of anyone here. I administrate for a living. I just came home from a 10 hour
> stretch of administrating. :) So don't get me wrong, I believe in
> administration as much as anyone. I just don't believe your typical online fan
> enthusiast organization needs these committees as much as they think they do.
But the point of enthusiast organisation committees is that they think they need
them. If they didn't think they needed them, then they wouldn't have them.
> But I'll say up front, my lack of respect for these committees ain't keeping
> them from effectively building more usable tools.
So you say. Why not try respecting them a little and seeing if things improve?
Things are hardly going to get better whilst you and I sit back and heap scorn
on them.
> That's because those
> committees have zero power in actually making the tools any better: It's up to
> the actual program authors to do such a thing. Unless those committees can
> direct developers to make direct changes (eg, direct pipe to the development
> channel) to user interface, anything else is just putting "lipstick on the pig"
> (eg, tutorials, as helpful as they are).
>
> Frankly, if I had spent years writing "CTCAD" or "CDraw", the last thing I would
> do was to agree to implement anything the LDraw Committee of Something or Other
> "voted" me to do.
Then don’t ‘give’ it to the community. Keep it yours and share it as you wish,
but when you tire of it, or move on or whatever, give it to the community. Let a
committee run with it. Why kill it yourself when you can let a committee do it?
> And therein lies the rub: You can't product manage volunteer
> developers, especially not in something most don't really prioritize or
> understand (user interface) well anyways.
>
> I can only point the last three news items on the LDraw.org website news sidebar
> as a hint as to what's I think they do on these committees.
-snip ‘administrivia’ on committees-
> Maybe I'm missing something.
Yes, maybe you are. Maybe you’re missing real first hand knowledge of the hard
work that goes on. Have you run for the committee? Do you browse the archives
looking for more than threads supporting administrivia theories and mocking
committees like I do?
Also the Steering Committee archives are not public, so when you’re looking at
the archives, you’re looking at the administrative threads that support the real
work, not at the real work itself – work which can’t go on without the
administrative support.
But, as you say, maybe you’re missing something.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
