« Press Conference | Main | Benjamin Duranske At it Again! »

12/02/2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Prokofy Neva

Reply to Fluf from the JIRA:


>I commonly associate the use of lengthy commentary to confuse and confound the argument of an issue (as in "Filibuster").

Well, that's your problem. I guess you didn't have sufficient background in the humanities, or even the history of science. Long text abound in life. Often a long text is required to rebut every single point in detail. Deal with it.

"Clear concise communication" is just shorthand for "jargon me and my buddies can understand". Every profession or grouplet has its jargon. I'm not required to master it or spout it just to participate in the JIRA. Precisely because there is no shared understanding it can take longer to rebut the points, and your notion that it has to be shoehorned into some template of 500 words is evidently a hangover of your tekkie engineering background.

Um, have you looked at any technical manuals lately? Gosh, they are long suckers. Detailed. Fine print. Awful stuff.

You begin spouting your ideological mindset from the get-go, mistaking as "the facts" what are merely your religious beliefs about the JIRA which I don't share.

If the JIRA good citizens were good-natured, they'd have no need to fly into fits, screeching and squawking at the slightest resistance to their will. You'd never see an evil quantity like Thunder Mortgridge, who called me "the Cho of Second Life" (what a freak) on the Dell blog, just to get street cred with Second Citizen.

You wouldn't see WarKirby and Thraxis, two young fellas with parental issues evidently, spouting and fuming and carrying on.

Instead, there'd be invocation of facts, and not fiats, like some other denizens of the SC (Coyote's boyfriend? hello?) just saying "oh, this is not an engineering issue" and closing it with prejudice.

None of these are good citizens. They're Second Citizens. They are *bad* citizens. They have no love of the truth; they have no inquiring minds; they have no attention to the facts; they only think of self-interest and sucking up to the Lindens and gaining reputational points.

As I pointed out, I didn't make up the word citizen; Rob Linden did.

The user can't count on other users to re-open his issue as a check and balance against the overzealous closers. Not at all. As witnessed by the fact that i'm the *third person* to mount a JIRA proposal like this.

The Lindens themselves told us that the Feature Voting Tool was to be improved and enhanced in a new governance system. We were assured this would be "migrated". I was told that it wasn't really being destroyed by Angel Fluffy, just, um, "cleaned up" because of "duplication and off-topic proposals" etc. Uh-uh. That's how they always do it.

The definition of governance you cite is a good one to explain that a) the JIRA is governance and b) it is wrongful and unjust governance.

It's not a customer feedback template when the relationship is not soley between the customer and the company; but in a triangle of one customer/another customer/the company.

It's that third leg of the triangle that makes it all difference. When I suggest a feature to Sony or Verizon, I'm not told to get in line to battle with other customers who think differently on a difficult-to-use device like a JIRA. I file the proposal, and that's it.

The Lindens can't have it both ways. They can't engage in this act of pitting groups of customers against each other and picking and chosing, and then pretend they have merely customer feedback, and not a government.

It's hardly off-topic when the Lindens allow a group of uneducated, insolent script kiddies and lifer adults with issues who hang around an OS project all day to control the world merely by virtue of their free labour and fierce obsessiveness. The people who pay money matter, too. In fact, as Maklin pointed out, given that we do pay money, the Lindens should have a more company/customer relationship and not be taking free labour from people whom one must then challenge and fight to get at the Lindens' intentions.

There aren't any "many others". This is one of the deepest and most perplexing fallacies of this OS sect that has infected the JIRA . They don't represent even the OS movement; they surely don't represent even the class of all those people who are computer science experts.

Second Life merely gave all these Linux nutters and information-wants-to-be-free socialist hippies a big platform for amplification of their shrill and uneducated ideas.

>You also brush across the fact that people watching an issue are instantly alerted to it's closure at the moment anyway. So in effect the democratic peer review already occurs doesn't it?

Not at all. People are intimidated; people don't get the email; people give up; people come back and open it only to see it closed again; notification is not consent.

>I actually said there would be 5,000 open issues, not closed. And since I can't actually decode the rest of the paragraph to tell if you meant open or closed ... I'll sit and contemplate ... something

Um, shall we go over it again? I know it's likely pitched over your head. 5,000 open issues are 5,000 closed issues in fact, because you're anticipating that everything you CLAIMED was logical and without dispute now in the existing system, would, in the system I envision, suddenly break loose and undo 5,000 actions. Um, follow your logic, please?

I've explained it already on the JIRA. If 5,000 people who were closed would in fact all re-open under my system by not expressing consent, then....that means they were closed wrongfully and are rightly rebelling. Not 5, not 50, but 5,000. That's why I'm saying those closed under the existing system -- if they were to become the problem you imagine and clutter up the JIRA needlessly -- would have to be people closed against their will, who will now rise up and open their issues.

But...in reality 90 percent or more of the people will agree, once explain with logic and coherence. They will no live to clutter up the JIRA. Their consent to closure will in fact bolster the democratic legitimacy -- and scientific legitimacy of this project.

>... Oh ... while we're here, can I suggest your need to have these obscure rambling paragraphs, often with only one full stop, suggests that you are unconsciously doing something too, and could you sit and contemplate it please? [I feel better now we've traded bizarre psychological assessments of each other].

Sure, um, I can contemplate that I'm writing a compelling and difficult argument. What are you doing? Spouting rhetoric you read out of a textbook?

>Oh no hang on. I contemplated just enough! I recall something about: issues should be closed only with the consent of the original reporter. In which case, I was simply suggesting that process would significantly slow down closing issues by the need for exchange of request, consent, then action of closing an item.
Right. Ok. I've thought about all that fear and lack of knowledge stuff. Nope. Doesn't apply. Sorry.


Then...uh...why are there 5,000? If no fear? No lack of knowledge? If there are 5,000 compelling arguments to close? Why the FUD, Fluf? It's just a toggle. It won't lead to the fall of Linden Lab.

>Hey cool. Thanks for this one... Then you state that there are far far less open items and it's because people gave up or didn't understand. You then call that unscientific.

No, I said that if you give everyone consent, they will in fact consent to most closures, and that helps add legitimacy AND creates a check and balance against voluntarism. And that's a good thing.

Um, apparently you are wilfully misunderstanding this, or perhaps it's too complex for you.

>Well. OK. To take a scientific perspective. How do you know that to be true? What stats do you have that would help validate that claim? What method of finding that out could you use, that I could then re-use to validate your findings?

Well, uh, I don't have to look far. You claim there's no need at all to have a consent toggle because there's all these righteous "good citizens" properly closing issues, and in those tiny, tiny percentage of cases where they mess up, why other good citizens or the OP open it up again, everybody explains it, and then it is resolved as happily as the Brady Bunch.

Soooooooo....that means, that if there is this love all around on the JIRA, why fear consent? Everyone will just consent, right? And if they don't, why, other good citizens will explain, right? Or they will time out. Sooooooooo...what are you afraid of?

>Duplications. you want me to email someone a suggested link in the hope they might read it and respond someday that "yes" or "no" that sounds like a good idea?

Uh, no, actually, the system itself has a handy thingie where you can post at the very top of the JIRA a link to that duplicated issue, with the helpful phrase "duplicates X, Y, Z". Sooooo use that! No need for emails! And the er, wisdom of the crowd will surely prevail, eh?

>So then I can go ahead and link it? Time Prokofy! Time is your enemy here, not some bias on which issues should be linked as a duplicate! Besides, by the very act of linking you get a big "Comment" box to explain your link to the reporter and other readers. That's your email right there. The possibility they will come back and say "no hang on" and re-open it is them saying "no" to the email you wanted to send earlier.

No, it is a) forcing those who close issues to make their case better, to cease doing it so radically and with some blanket abandon, because they know they face some pushback b) allowing those who were closed to have the power of consent which is a very important check on abuse; and c) adding to the legitimacy of the JIRA, such as it is.


>What are you adding except delay?

Where's the delay? It's on a timer. And what do you fear? If issues aren't closed instantly by busybodies, who cares, except the busybodies?

Why do you see the JIRA as being a contest to close as many issues as the public will at large generates?!

>People who's proposals or bugs are closed DO have the right to edit. I said "Like a wiki, the JIRA is INTENDED to be editable". How clear cut can I get? I even went out on a limb and used caps!

Um, gosh, you can't distinguish between someone understanding something you say, but disagreeing with you, and them "not getting it".

As I already copiously explained, the Wiki is a poisoned well. It is riven with special interests, unaccountable anonymity, cliques, cults, etc. that make it a far more oppressive force than any encyclopedia editorial board.

>Why are you afraid of users oh sorry .. "citizens" editing your issues? I'm not!

I don't call them citizens. I'm not afraid of them editing; I do *oppose* their shutting down freedom of expression and ownership of content, which is what they are doing.

My parting remarks on going to start your own blog were in the hope that an intelligent user might think "we'll that's not going to work as a way of getting things noticed." Or in some cases, current blog maintainers might be better off airing certain grievances back on their own blog.

These issues can't be decided on blogs though, because we don't have a Feature Voter that links to discussions as we used to, encouraging that concept; and even encouraging first an airing of a draft on a forum instead of immediately posting the proposal. Instead, what we have is the oppressive JIRA where the few decide for the many.

>I sometimes make such crass remarks at the ends of posts and must stop it. I forget irony doesn't work well on the web sometimes.

If you were smarter, it might be a more interesting discussion. You aren't.


>Well no. Lets not "posit" it shall we? It's fundamentally flawed in so many ways! Take it back to basics and start again shall we? The original description:

Your tendentious reading, not mine.


"A frequent practice by a tiny group of coders who spend a great deal of time on the JIRA is to unilaterally and arbitrarily close any issue they do not agree with, or move issues that they perceive as needing to be conflated with other issues.

The JIRA should be set up with a mechanism so that no issue can be closed or moved without the author's consent."

>1 - You believe it to be "A frequent practice" many others do not.

I'm the third one to mount this proposal. It happened to me personally in the space of only 3 proposals for no sound reason. I began to see all over, in the entire list of "resolved" issues, that there was a real problem.

And like all cults, I see that the worst violence is done not to outsiders, but to each other -- these types are the harshest on "their own kind who tolerate this abuse to keep the whole sick thing going.

>2 - I strongly doubt that the LL coders themselves spend much time on here at all. They should be looking at the LL internal JIRA instead. You may be referring to active contributors, which are citizens or users to you or me.

I'm sure the Lindens are basically supremely indifferent to this entire exercise. Rob Linden is not a coder per say, do you realize that? He himself will explain that. He is someone with some background who has mainly been hired to "manage" the open-source community. So he's more like a product manager, not a coder -- he's managing the product called "Let's give the OS kiddies a chance to feel wanted and maybe extract some good out of their free labour".

>3 - Not many Linden's spend enough time in here (in my opinion). Not through any particular fault. Perhaps simply because it's a bigger more sprawling thing than perhaps they expected, perhaps because they are too busy dealing with the problems they have already.

Well, sure. Because it's merely a new game instance, with a new boss, and new quests, and new aggro. That's all.

>4 - It's only unilateral until the reporter or someone else decides it needs re-opening or moving back. So it's not technically unilateral at all since both sides can comment.

Much of the time, premature closure should be avoided in favour of actual discussion.

You might also solve the problem of abuse by having a 7-day timer against closures. All proposals have time to collect votes and make their argument before the code-kiddies close them.

>5 - I'm stunned to think these actions might be "at random" (arbitrarily) carried out. Who in their right mind logs in to the JIRA for a fun filled hour of closing random items???

Uh, the lifers who congregate on there? Look at the amazing number of things found as duplicated, declared misfiled, moved, edited, changed, closed. It's obsessive, assiduous labour by the compulsive.

>Besides, your use of this word undermines all your further mentions of bias in following comments.

You're speaking nonsense here, it doesn't relate to any previous point.

>6 - I do not believe your basic notion of not being able to close issues without the reporters consent is practical or required.

Right, so we got that. And that's why we need to resist people like you would allow only a tiny cabal of coders to run everything. Oh, I guess that's what my JIRA 382 is all about then, right.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)