3 ms·

> Told about the issues, the response was basically Alloy et al wanted to invest no time or money into a better situation. That's actually not true. https://g

by onli 11y ago

> Told about the issues, the response was basically Alloy et al wanted to invest no time or money into a better situation. That's actually not true. https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/4989#issuecomment-193810378 https://github.com/CocoaPods/CocoaPods/issues/4989#issuecomm... is the answer we are talking about, aren't we? What alloy is doing there is: 1. Thanking mhagger for the response 2. Asking for additional explanations 3. He explains then why the project is taking the route they took, the benefits for them. Explaining alone does not mean unwillingness to change. It just makes sure it is clear why it is like it currently is. Yes, that mentions the time and money benefit, but so what – it's honest, and it is valid to limit expectations on what is possible now. 4. He then indeed asks for a discussion on how to improve the current system without changing it completely. But this does not mean not investing time, to the contrary: He actively invites a continuation of a discussion and already there makes clear that he is indeed willing to work on a better solution, and that is the core point making this a constructive answer. How the discussion continues in my eyes clearly shows that the negative interpretation of this first answer, in your comment and this thread, is wrong. That's not someone blocking change, not even at first, that is someone asking for clarification and even clearer tasks to do. That's not a bad thing at all.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
"> Told about the issues, the response was basically Alloy et al wanted to invest no time or money into a better situation." "That's actually not true." "taking the route they took, the benefits for them... Yes, that mentions the time and money benefit, but so what – it's honest, and it is valid to limit expectations on what is possible now." So, it was true. Then the dialog continued from there with Alloy paying attention to the situation. Alloy refused to do any signiciant work on their end for their maximal benefit in a disruptive situation from a free service. Even admitted they were using a service for something it's not designed for but didn't care about moving to a more appropriate one. Hence, my calling it selfish. Eventually, others had invested their own time and energy into the problem enough to come up with some simple recommendations for Alloy that take very little effort on his part. Alloy summarized those and agreed to attempt them. Thread was closed before we could see where that went. Given above, I stand by my claim that he was a selfish individual pushing his own liabilities onto others wherever possible. Even in how it was remedied was mostly on others. On other hand, he might make a good capitalist w/ that level of exploitation and externalizing. :)
- onli 11y ago
  Saw how you went from "no time and money" to "no significant work"? My point is that he signaled explicitly that he was willing to invest time and work. He literally writes so: > I.e. I’d like us to continue this discussion, at first, from the notion of us maintaining the existing architecture. Where things are absolutely impossible, it would be great if you can include more links to docs/source that explain why things are impossible. Notice the "at first", notice also the following proposed action of working with a snapshot. You made clear you were expecting another reaction. And I see why. Still, I think you miss how much good faith was contained in this response. It is a bit sad this gets overlooked. People forget text is not that easy to interpret.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    "Saw how you went from "no time and money" to "no significant work"? " You're right that text is not easy to interpret. For instance, there were two interpretations of my text: a literal and precise one that focuses on how much effort I say he would commit; an interpretation that realizes I was speaking figuratively with hyperbole. It was the latter. The message was a counterpoint supporting that he was selfish rather than a precise statement of how selfish he was. You would be 100% right if we were talking literally about him such as in a court filing or HR report. "Notice the "at first", notice also the following proposed action of working with a snapshot. You made clear you were expecting another reaction. And I see why. Still, I think you miss how much good faith was contained in this response." This is possible. Let me re-read his post first. Alright, done. Here's a re-review. His first response starts with thanks and statements that show either (a) an incredibly joyous and friendly personality or (b) brown-nosing of a salesman before a pitch. Horizontal line. Unclear on some things. Asks for more information. We then get to the reasons: 1. Did no work on syncing data to reduce funded development hours. 2. Don't want to operate a repo due to reduced effort or funding. 3. Easier for their users and adoption. These are all self-centered. Honest as you said but already support my claim of selfishness. Let's keep looking. Upon a suggestion of other packaging systems, vaguely claims they are using a "smarter" method then reiterates HR and funding justifications above. Ignores alternatives in next sentence to reiterate their existing, strange, and broken solution with a dismissal about having to build a cathedral rather than just using existing solutions. So, Alloy already laid a foundation of total selfishness in terms of time, funding, and design inflexibility. At this point, Alloy is interested in solutions that totally maintain their existing design and lack of commitment to anything else. Offers to make a few simple changes that "would still use your resources." Asks for information that basically leads to those in recommendations that they begin to apply. So, re-reading his post, it comes off as incredibly selfish using text that's not hard to interpret. He clearly believes their design works, won't be changed unless forced, changes must take little effort from them, they must not use their funding, and must specifically use GitHub's resources. My claim of selfish and externalizing is fully supported at this point. I think the other commenter's claim of being "myopic" about what he's doing in the project is accurate, too.

by onli 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago

"> Told about the issues, the response was basically Alloy et al wanted to invest no time or money into a better situation." "That's actually not true." "taking the route they took, the benefits for them... Yes, that mentions the time and money benefit, but so what – it's honest, and it is valid to limit expectations on what is possible now." So, it was true. Then the dialog continued from there with Alloy paying attention to the situation. Alloy refused to do any signiciant work on their end for their maximal benefit in a disruptive situation from a free service. Even admitted they were using a service for something it's not designed for but didn't care about moving to a more appropriate one. Hence, my calling it selfish. Eventually, others had invested their own time and energy into the problem enough to come up with some simple recommendations for Alloy that take very little effort on his part. Alloy summarized those and agreed to attempt them. Thread was closed before we could see where that went. Given above, I stand by my claim that he was a selfish individual pushing his own liabilities onto others wherever possible. Even in how it was remedied was mostly on others. On other hand, he might make a good capitalist w/ that level of exploitation and externalizing. :)

onli 11y ago
Saw how you went from "no time and money" to "no significant work"? My point is that he signaled explicitly that he was willing to invest time and work. He literally writes so: > I.e. I’d like us to continue this discussion, at first, from the notion of us maintaining the existing architecture. Where things are absolutely impossible, it would be great if you can include more links to docs/source that explain why things are impossible. Notice the "at first", notice also the following proposed action of working with a snapshot. You made clear you were expecting another reaction. And I see why. Still, I think you miss how much good faith was contained in this response. It is a bit sad this gets overlooked. People forget text is not that easy to interpret.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  "Saw how you went from "no time and money" to "no significant work"? " You're right that text is not easy to interpret. For instance, there were two interpretations of my text: a literal and precise one that focuses on how much effort I say he would commit; an interpretation that realizes I was speaking figuratively with hyperbole. It was the latter. The message was a counterpoint supporting that he was selfish rather than a precise statement of how selfish he was. You would be 100% right if we were talking literally about him such as in a court filing or HR report. "Notice the "at first", notice also the following proposed action of working with a snapshot. You made clear you were expecting another reaction. And I see why. Still, I think you miss how much good faith was contained in this response." This is possible. Let me re-read his post first. Alright, done. Here's a re-review. His first response starts with thanks and statements that show either (a) an incredibly joyous and friendly personality or (b) brown-nosing of a salesman before a pitch. Horizontal line. Unclear on some things. Asks for more information. We then get to the reasons: 1. Did no work on syncing data to reduce funded development hours. 2. Don't want to operate a repo due to reduced effort or funding. 3. Easier for their users and adoption. These are all self-centered. Honest as you said but already support my claim of selfishness. Let's keep looking. Upon a suggestion of other packaging systems, vaguely claims they are using a "smarter" method then reiterates HR and funding justifications above. Ignores alternatives in next sentence to reiterate their existing, strange, and broken solution with a dismissal about having to build a cathedral rather than just using existing solutions. So, Alloy already laid a foundation of total selfishness in terms of time, funding, and design inflexibility. At this point, Alloy is interested in solutions that totally maintain their existing design and lack of commitment to anything else. Offers to make a few simple changes that "would still use your resources." Asks for information that basically leads to those in recommendations that they begin to apply. So, re-reading his post, it comes off as incredibly selfish using text that's not hard to interpret. He clearly believes their design works, won't be changed unless forced, changes must take little effort from them, they must not use their funding, and must specifically use GitHub's resources. My claim of selfish and externalizing is fully supported at this point. I think the other commenter's claim of being "myopic" about what he's doing in the project is accurate, too.