3 ms·

> clarification request: with scare qutoes around "their time wasted," does that imply that you do like your time wasted? You know the answer, so forgive me fo

> clarification request: with scare qutoes around "their time wasted," does that imply that you do like your time wasted? You know the answer, so forgive me for not responding to your not-in-good-faith question. To clarify my point: If you think about this from the project maintainer's standpoint, the submitter is the one doing something wrong if they are getting angry at this outcome. They are speculatively doing work assuming that it is going to eventually get integrated, without seeking any information about its value beforehand.

freedomben 4y ago
> You know the answer, so forgive me for not responding to your not-in-good-faith question. No I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. And if you're going to assume bad faith on my end then there's probably not much more to discuss. Curious, what if the maintainer had just replied with a "finger" emoji instead? Would that change your opinion on whether this was gross, or is the manner of the reply completely irrelevant to you? (Since you seem to be presuming bad faith on my part, I feel I have to add this disclaimer to my thought experiment. Don't assume I'm implying there is some sort of equivalency here with the response that was given and a hypothetical "finger" response. I am not. This is a thought experiment, not an implication that the maintainer acted in such a way). If so, then I would suggest that our disagreement here is just about what is polite and what's not, and what a person's social responsibility is regarding being polite. In my opinion there's a responsiblity on the maintainer to be polite in this case. If you disagree with that, that's just an "agree to disagree" sort of thing. If your opinion wouldn't change if the response had been a "finger" emoji, then I would suggest that our disagreement here is about whether politeness is something that matters.
- gorjusborg 4y ago
  I honestly don't see how politeness factors into this (but I definitely think the maintainers were polite enough in this case). The person who submitted this code went out on a limb and implemented something without talking to the maintainers first. That's completely fine. I'm sure they learned quite a bit by implementing it. That's a win by itself. It's the getting upset that it didn't get integrated that I think is unreasonable. The maintainers donate their time to write and curate code to make progress on their vision of the software. Submitting code like this (not talking beforehand) is like giving a friend who likes photography a camera without asking what they want. There's a chance they love it, but there's a good chance they wont. If you care about getting one outcome over another, you need to communicate beforehand.

freedomben 4y ago

> You know the answer, so forgive me for not responding to your not-in-good-faith question. No I don't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. And if you're going to assume bad faith on my end then there's probably not much more to discuss. Curious, what if the maintainer had just replied with a "finger" emoji instead? Would that change your opinion on whether this was gross, or is the manner of the reply completely irrelevant to you? (Since you seem to be presuming bad faith on my part, I feel I have to add this disclaimer to my thought experiment. Don't assume I'm implying there is some sort of equivalency here with the response that was given and a hypothetical "finger" response. I am not. This is a thought experiment, not an implication that the maintainer acted in such a way). If so, then I would suggest that our disagreement here is just about what is polite and what's not, and what a person's social responsibility is regarding being polite. In my opinion there's a responsiblity on the maintainer to be polite in this case. If you disagree with that, that's just an "agree to disagree" sort of thing. If your opinion wouldn't change if the response had been a "finger" emoji, then I would suggest that our disagreement here is about whether politeness is something that matters.

gorjusborg 4y ago
I honestly don't see how politeness factors into this (but I definitely think the maintainers were polite enough in this case). The person who submitted this code went out on a limb and implemented something without talking to the maintainers first. That's completely fine. I'm sure they learned quite a bit by implementing it. That's a win by itself. It's the getting upset that it didn't get integrated that I think is unreasonable. The maintainers donate their time to write and curate code to make progress on their vision of the software. Submitting code like this (not talking beforehand) is like giving a friend who likes photography a camera without asking what they want. There's a chance they love it, but there's a good chance they wont. If you care about getting one outcome over another, you need to communicate beforehand.