Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kindred
91
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 10th, 2013, 11:52 PM »
Arantor.... and your very statement proves that people on the dev team either want "it all" (i.e. no input from anyone except them) or are misunderstanding the team roles.
The way it is SUPPOSED to be working is:
We start a new version. The whole team weighs in on what they think would be good enhancements, changes or other functionality.
the developers respond with reasons why X Y or Z may or may not be possible...
The dev lead sits down (virtually) with the steering committee and they (together) decide on what are "must-haves", "want-to'haves" and "won't be dones"
It is then up to the dev team to accomplish any of this.... and it is the dev lead's responsibility to see that his/her team is working toward the appropriate goals. When the release is close to ready, the rest of the team gets back into the mix by testing the first alpha versions and commenting on the good, the bad and the ugly...
No where in this flow does anyone ever tell the dev team how or what to code... (well, I suppose the dev lead does tell the rest of the devs what needs to be coded, but that's all within dev.)
So, despite many complaints from former devs about other people telling them what to do, I fail to see that ACTUALLY occuring anywhere in the mix...
The big deal in the last few months was made into a huge deal because one former developers made an unauthorized and incorrect change to the LEGAL statement portion of every file... the change was noted and called out as something which should not have been done, and suddenly devs started screaming that they were being repressed (by someone who was appointed by some tart in a lake handing out swords)
The way it is SUPPOSED to be working is:
We start a new version. The whole team weighs in on what they think would be good enhancements, changes or other functionality.
the developers respond with reasons why X Y or Z may or may not be possible...
The dev lead sits down (virtually) with the steering committee and they (together) decide on what are "must-haves", "want-to'haves" and "won't be dones"
It is then up to the dev team to accomplish any of this.... and it is the dev lead's responsibility to see that his/her team is working toward the appropriate goals. When the release is close to ready, the rest of the team gets back into the mix by testing the first alpha versions and commenting on the good, the bad and the ugly...
No where in this flow does anyone ever tell the dev team how or what to code... (well, I suppose the dev lead does tell the rest of the devs what needs to be coded, but that's all within dev.)
So, despite many complaints from former devs about other people telling them what to do, I fail to see that ACTUALLY occuring anywhere in the mix...
The big deal in the last few months was made into a huge deal because one former developers made an unauthorized and incorrect change to the LEGAL statement portion of every file... the change was noted and called out as something which should not have been done, and suddenly devs started screaming that they were being repressed (by someone who was appointed by some tart in a lake handing out swords)
92
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on December 27th, 2012, 06:25 PM »
yeah... interesting that he stuck his "army" in Victorian era London after the battle in the future for Melody/River....
and as for Clara... it's not just her repartee... it's the delivery. Donna had some really good lines, but they were ruined (IMO) because I disliked the actress and her delivery - the banter between Doctor/Amy/Rory was good delivery and timing... but Clara really has the whole "I can be as frenetic as the doctor" thing down! (and she's proven that she is SMART!)
and as for Clara... it's not just her repartee... it's the delivery. Donna had some really good lines, but they were ruined (IMO) because I disliked the actress and her delivery - the banter between Doctor/Amy/Rory was good delivery and timing... but Clara really has the whole "I can be as frenetic as the doctor" thing down! (and she's proven that she is SMART!)
93
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on December 27th, 2012, 04:06 PM »
I really liked it...
and I love Clara.
and I love Clara.
95
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 8th, 2012, 01:55 AM »
Oh, I never said that SMF couldn't do with some tweaks and updates... just that I don't think those are the be-all and end-all. :P
96
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 7th, 2012, 06:17 PM »
we'll have to agree to disagree on what makes a forum/site interesting or "modernized". :)
97
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 6th, 2012, 03:05 PM »
Oh, you won't get any disagreement from me about what wedge has done. I am impressed and in favor of most of the stuff done here. I just thing that you are wrong about all those bells and whistles. Content is what matters, in the end. I go to a site or a page to read what is there...
Back in the 80s and 90s, some people decided, like you, that bells and whistles and animation and moving bits, etc were good. Those pages were trash... Absolute trash.
In the end, while a pretty site may get visitors, only a site with good content will keep them..., regardless of the "flashiness" of the site.
(and btw, I despise all the crap that Facebook forces on us)
Back in the 80s and 90s, some people decided, like you, that bells and whistles and animation and moving bits, etc were good. Those pages were trash... Absolute trash.
In the end, while a pretty site may get visitors, only a site with good content will keep them..., regardless of the "flashiness" of the site.
(and btw, I despise all the crap that Facebook forces on us)
98
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 09:29 PM »
yeah... it mostly does. Although I am actually using it on three sites, I am not happy and would be thrilled to find something better for the user we're making of it.
99
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 07:32 PM »
Oh yes... It is indeed a form of protectionism, no argument with that at all. It was intended to be so... (and also to encourage people who are forking to use an truly open license. :) ) Although I would not agree that we're as bad as Linux is about it... lol
I saw the same was pretty new... and I wasn't even commenting on the complaints in the system... I was complaining about the site itself.
1- I can't register. It gives me a database error when I try
2- there is no option to contact the admin to notify him of 1.
3- I am unimpressed with the organization of the site...
I saw the same was pretty new... and I wasn't even commenting on the complaints in the system... I was complaining about the site itself.
1- I can't register. It gives me a database error when I try
2- there is no option to contact the admin to notify him of 1.
3- I am unimpressed with the organization of the site...
100
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 06:56 PM »
hmmm... I've never even heard of forumcomplaints... but that is kinda funny.
Although, looking at that site, I am seriously NOT impressed with the admin in the first place....
Yeah, I can see your interpretation of the fork board rules (discussion so long as its not showcasing)... I can also see the other side (no discussion of non-open license forks)... and yes, the position is slightly hypocritical considering our previous stance on the 1.0 license, but the hell with that. LOL. If Mitt can flip flop and give a different position every other day, why not SMF? :)
As for being threatened... no, I don't think so. At least not the main group of us... maybe some individuals.
Although, looking at that site, I am seriously NOT impressed with the admin in the first place....
Yeah, I can see your interpretation of the fork board rules (discussion so long as its not showcasing)... I can also see the other side (no discussion of non-open license forks)... and yes, the position is slightly hypocritical considering our previous stance on the 1.0 license, but the hell with that. LOL. If Mitt can flip flop and give a different position every other day, why not SMF? :)
As for being threatened... no, I don't think so. At least not the main group of us... maybe some individuals.
101
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 5th, 2012, 05:26 PM »
well, Arantor... we'll see. :) Hopefully the rest of us who are willing to let bygones can overrule those who are stills stuck. :)
Anthony,
you give the general public too much credit.Quote As someone who is involved in the web for business, I disagree with this statement 110%. People have no idea what they "want" except what they are TOLD they should want... dealing with marketing and sales folks, I am continually telling them "NO! I don't care what you think you heard on Jimmy Kimmel...(or whatever show they thought told them that something was 'popular'.) "
People want them because they are used... and then others follow the "trend" no matter how stupid it is.
They are not (in general) used because people want them.
Anthony,
you give the general public too much credit.
Let's face it, the web is obviously alot more dynamic nowadays, and if people didn't want these things, they wouldn't be used so much.
People want them because they are used... and then others follow the "trend" no matter how stupid it is.
They are not (in general) used because people want them.
102
The Pub / Re: About SMF and this project
« on November 4th, 2012, 03:55 PM »
well, IMO effects are overrated.
I actually tend to rate sites LESS for the more "effects" they have.
(I recently tried out a site and left, never to return, because of all the "bells and whistles" that the webmaster had installed.)
On the other hand, I agree with Arantor that the biggest problem that SMF has faced (and still faces) is churn of staff and the development time. Although 2.1 is in alpha as well. It includes many more hooks and much more JS crap if that's your cup-o-tea
As for discussion of wedge. :) Now that all the real ugliness is behind us, discussion/mention is fine.... within certain limits, of course, since it is (technically) a competing software. :)
The fact that wedge isn't allowed in the "forks" board is, of course, because the license (of the alpha, at least) is not inline with the rules of the board. (and no, that rule was not specifically targeted at Wedge - although we did realize it would affect discussion of wedge, primarily, at the time.) I will note that the inclusion of an area to discuss forks of a software on the main site is something that no other software has or allows, to the best of my knowledge. We just included certain rules to what we want to be shared on the SM site. :)
I actually tend to rate sites LESS for the more "effects" they have.
(I recently tried out a site and left, never to return, because of all the "bells and whistles" that the webmaster had installed.)
On the other hand, I agree with Arantor that the biggest problem that SMF has faced (and still faces) is churn of staff and the development time. Although 2.1 is in alpha as well. It includes many more hooks and much more JS crap if that's your cup-o-tea
As for discussion of wedge. :) Now that all the real ugliness is behind us, discussion/mention is fine.... within certain limits, of course, since it is (technically) a competing software. :)
The fact that wedge isn't allowed in the "forks" board is, of course, because the license (of the alpha, at least) is not inline with the rules of the board. (and no, that rule was not specifically targeted at Wedge - although we did realize it would affect discussion of wedge, primarily, at the time.) I will note that the inclusion of an area to discuss forks of a software on the main site is something that no other software has or allows, to the best of my knowledge. We just included certain rules to what we want to be shared on the SM site. :)
103
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on October 12th, 2012, 11:07 PM »
ok... that was awesome.
I wish they had filmed it... (even though I agree that it was powerful in drawing and description) it's better than the ending they used.
I wish they had filmed it... (even though I agree that it was powerful in drawing and description) it's better than the ending they used.
104
Off-topic / Re: Meaning of usernames
« on October 11th, 2012, 09:39 PM »
Actually, thinking back, my original name was "Omicron" - I ran a BBS for years called "Omega BBS" focused on the neo-paganism etc in my area.
105
Off-topic / Re: Doctor Who
« on October 11th, 2012, 08:38 PM »
I dunno.... I didn't like the angels in this episode.
I loved them in Blink. They were scary as all hell in the later episode... this one, they just kinda were...
(click to show/hide)
I loved them in Blink. They were scary as all hell in the later episode... this one, they just kinda were...
Actually, the giant angel and the kid angels made them rather comic, instead of more scary.
As for Rory, etc...
I think we can infer that a sufficient paradox will "shut down" access to a particular place/time coordinate for travellers. It kinda makes sense... and also explains why the Tardis has such a hard time getting in there to start with.
I had issues with Rory et al turning up in that graveyard though. If the paradox reset by reverting and casting out the cause, then they should have ended up back in the park.