3 ms·

Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?) The attitude that actually is unhealt

by inimino 10y ago

Where did I say "above criticism" and what does "obedience" have to do with this? (Is Mr. Cunningham bossing you around?) The attitude that actually is unhealthy is when someone graciously provides a service to the community for years, and then stops doing that, and people whine as though they are entitled to the continuation of that service. Respect in cases like this should mean to appreciate the work done to keep the thing running until now, and if someone decides to stop doing that work, respect that choice, even if you don't understand it or agree with it.

dpark 10y ago
You very much stated and continue to state that no one should complain about Cunningham's choice here out of respect. This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. This is painfully obvious from your last line. You say "respect that choice" and clearly mean "accept it and shut up". I don't think it counts as "whining" to ask if there is another way (e.g. switch to static content) to address Cunningham's concerns/costs without outright taking the wiki down. In no way do I think Cunningham owes the community continued indefinite hosting of the wiki. At the same time, its removal is a loss to the community and it's unsurprising that some would ask if this could be handled differently.
- wpietri 10y ago
  > This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. It does not. An alternative explanation: We recognize him as an autonomous adult who does not owe us anything. We trust that if he wants our advice, he will ask us for it. Ward Cunningham has a long track record of doing very smart things. I met him a number of times at the early conferences, and he was consistently sharp, kind, and generous with his time. To criticize his decisions about what he does with his own stuff is a level of presumption that I would be unlikely to indulge in. Just because I don't understand what he's doing doesn't mean he doesn't understand.
  - dpark 10y ago
    Does "we respect Ward Cunningham" mean we should sit silently when we disagree with his decision or not? It's either yes or no and speaking of autonomous adults and smart things doesn't change that. Either respect means we shut up when we disagree or it doesn't. You can't claim that respect doesn't mean we should shut up and then claim that we should shut up in this case ... because of our respect for Ward Cunningham. And I'd like to be super clear that Ward Cunningham doesn't owe me anything and if he wants to turn off his wiki and burn the archives that's his business and I actually don't care too much and I wish him all the best regardless. What I don't like is this frequent assertion that criticizing someone's actions implies a lack of respect, or conversely that respect implies silence in the face of disagreement.
    - wpietri 10y ago
      You are making a complicated thing into a binary. I'm sure that feels pleasantly dramatic, but it confuses issues where we need clarity. If you complain in a way that you are setting yourself up as judge and jury (a common mode here on HN), then yes, I'd rather you put a sock in it. Ward's a smart guy, he knows more about the topic than you, and he's spent much more time thinking about it. Truly respecting that eliminates certain kinds of critique. Note that this doesn't stop you from commenting. If you would like to mention your feelings in non-judgmental ways, that's fine. E.g., "I'm worried: what will happen to the archives?" Or "I don't understand how he will solve problem X." It also doesn't prevent you from expressing different values, as long as you respect his values. But you are only competent to disagree with his decision once you have as much information as he does and has put a similar level of thought into it. Otherwise you're one of those people who froths at a trial outcome without actually looking at the trial record and carefully reading the judge's decision. Not all opinions are equally valuable. If I suggest my ignorant opinion is just as good as somebody else's informed one, I am unavoidably being disrespectful to them.
      - dpark 10y ago
        > You are making a complicated thing into a binary. I'm sure that feels pleasantly dramatic, but it confuses issues where we need clarity. I'm happy to recognize the middle ground where someone can effectively just be whining and have nothing useful to say, and the appropriate thing to do is just shut up. That middle ground has nothing to do with respect though, which gets back to my point. Certainly I agree that the way a concern is voiced has a major impact on how it will be received. > But you are only competent to disagree with his decision once you have as much information as he does and has put a similar level of thought into it. Otherwise you're one of those people who froths at a trial outcome without actually looking at the trial record and carefully reading the judge's decision. Not all opinions are equally valuable. If I suggest my ignorant opinion is just as good as somebody else's informed one, I am unavoidably being disrespectful to them. Absolutely not. This is a terribly unhealthy attitude. By this logic, you can virtually never question someone's choice because you effectively never know everything that goes into someone else's choice. This is yes man logic that leads to an echo chamber. Less charitably, this is apologist behavior. This is the argument put forward to defend every shady government decision in history. "Oh, you don't have all the information so you can't have an opinion on the issue." What you should be doing in a situation where you disagree but don't feel well informed is to become well informed so that you can either defend your position or understand the decision.
- inimino 10y ago
  Maybe we just have different perspectives. I think it is safe to assume that Cunningham is familiar with the concept of static pages, and presumably has his reasons. Accepting that decision and seeing what comes of it seems better to me than all this arm-chair quarterbacking. There's no lack of people who aren't doing the work but have strong opinions on how it should be done.

by inimino 10y ago

dpark 10y ago

You very much stated and continue to state that no one should complain about Cunningham's choice here out of respect. This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. This is painfully obvious from your last line. You say "respect that choice" and clearly mean "accept it and shut up". I don't think it counts as "whining" to ask if there is another way (e.g. switch to static content) to address Cunningham's concerns/costs without outright taking the wiki down. In no way do I think Cunningham owes the community continued indefinite hosting of the wiki. At the same time, its removal is a loss to the community and it's unsurprising that some would ask if this could be handled differently.

wpietri 10y ago
> This absolutely implies that his action is above criticism and that the appropriate response is to remain silent. It does not. An alternative explanation: We recognize him as an autonomous adult who does not owe us anything. We trust that if he wants our advice, he will ask us for it. Ward Cunningham has a long track record of doing very smart things. I met him a number of times at the early conferences, and he was consistently sharp, kind, and generous with his time. To criticize his decisions about what he does with his own stuff is a level of presumption that I would be unlikely to indulge in. Just because I don't understand what he's doing doesn't mean he doesn't understand.
- dpark 10y ago
  Does "we respect Ward Cunningham" mean we should sit silently when we disagree with his decision or not? It's either yes or no and speaking of autonomous adults and smart things doesn't change that. Either respect means we shut up when we disagree or it doesn't. You can't claim that respect doesn't mean we should shut up and then claim that we should shut up in this case ... because of our respect for Ward Cunningham. And I'd like to be super clear that Ward Cunningham doesn't owe me anything and if he wants to turn off his wiki and burn the archives that's his business and I actually don't care too much and I wish him all the best regardless. What I don't like is this frequent assertion that criticizing someone's actions implies a lack of respect, or conversely that respect implies silence in the face of disagreement.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    You are making a complicated thing into a binary. I'm sure that feels pleasantly dramatic, but it confuses issues where we need clarity. If you complain in a way that you are setting yourself up as judge and jury (a common mode here on HN), then yes, I'd rather you put a sock in it. Ward's a smart guy, he knows more about the topic than you, and he's spent much more time thinking about it. Truly respecting that eliminates certain kinds of critique. Note that this doesn't stop you from commenting. If you would like to mention your feelings in non-judgmental ways, that's fine. E.g., "I'm worried: what will happen to the archives?" Or "I don't understand how he will solve problem X." It also doesn't prevent you from expressing different values, as long as you respect his values. But you are only competent to disagree with his decision once you have as much information as he does and has put a similar level of thought into it. Otherwise you're one of those people who froths at a trial outcome without actually looking at the trial record and carefully reading the judge's decision. Not all opinions are equally valuable. If I suggest my ignorant opinion is just as good as somebody else's informed one, I am unavoidably being disrespectful to them.
    - dpark 10y ago
      > You are making a complicated thing into a binary. I'm sure that feels pleasantly dramatic, but it confuses issues where we need clarity. I'm happy to recognize the middle ground where someone can effectively just be whining and have nothing useful to say, and the appropriate thing to do is just shut up. That middle ground has nothing to do with respect though, which gets back to my point. Certainly I agree that the way a concern is voiced has a major impact on how it will be received. > But you are only competent to disagree with his decision once you have as much information as he does and has put a similar level of thought into it. Otherwise you're one of those people who froths at a trial outcome without actually looking at the trial record and carefully reading the judge's decision. Not all opinions are equally valuable. If I suggest my ignorant opinion is just as good as somebody else's informed one, I am unavoidably being disrespectful to them. Absolutely not. This is a terribly unhealthy attitude. By this logic, you can virtually never question someone's choice because you effectively never know everything that goes into someone else's choice. This is yes man logic that leads to an echo chamber. Less charitably, this is apologist behavior. This is the argument put forward to defend every shady government decision in history. "Oh, you don't have all the information so you can't have an opinion on the issue." What you should be doing in a situation where you disagree but don't feel well informed is to become well informed so that you can either defend your position or understand the decision.
inimino 10y ago
Maybe we just have different perspectives. I think it is safe to assume that Cunningham is familiar with the concept of static pages, and presumably has his reasons. Accepting that decision and seeing what comes of it seems better to me than all this arm-chair quarterbacking. There's no lack of people who aren't doing the work but have strong opinions on how it should be done.