[haiku] Re: Tentative approval for paying for the fliers
- From: Ingo Weinhold <ingo_weinhold@xxxxxx>
- To: haiku@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 14:39:03 +0100
On 2009-12-24 at 00:33:52 [+0100], Jorge G. Mare <koki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Ingo Weinhold wrote:
>
> <All the mocking diatribe chopped>
>
> You may think all the mockery is very funny, but I am dead serious about
> the issues that I am raising. I have invested a lot of time and effort
> into Haiku over the years, so I expect the same fair treatment that
> other known contributors get.
Everyone who paints himself as the poor victim and a hero like you did will
be met by me with the same irony. I'm dead serious.
> > Anyway, letting your past heroical deeds rest for the moment, allow me to
> > rehash the arguments of this thread and try to find the still unanswered
> > questions. The main discussion started after your request for funding the
> > printing of the new flier was answered by Haiku, Inc. members with a
> > tentative commitment under two conditions: that the artwork be released
> > under a certain license, and that the Haiku, Inc. BOD would need to
> > approve
> > the final version. The first condition didn't seem to pose a problem. The
> > second condition, however, _although considered reasonable by every other_
> > _participant in the discussion_, was not acceptable to you.
>
> As a starter, you are already telling a half truth (see underlined
> quote), because there are people that have have sided with me, on this
> very same list (including one BOD member). I have to assume that you,
> like many others, come to this half-assed conclusion because you don't
> actually read everything that has been said. And I don't blame you for
> that, but please don't expect to be taken seriously in that case.
So I'm telling half truth, haven't read all of this thread and I'm drawing
half-assed conclusions. Trying personal offenses now? Please quote the BOD
member saying that he considered Haiku, Inc.'s request to see the final
design unreasonable.
> > You kept
> > insisting on a final commitment on using your design before you started
> > with the work on it. I identified two main lines of argument, I will
> > examine further:
> >
> > 1. Double Standard, Being Treated Differently/Singled Out
> >
> > You argumented that in previous instances Haiku, Inc. has never agreed to
> > funding request only "after the fact". There's a bit of fuzziness as to
> > what "after the fact" is supposed to mean. For the flier printing that
> > apparently means after the design is finished. In the other cases you've
> > pointed out (travel expenses, book, and hardware purchases), I'm not
> > entirely sure what "after the fact" what that would be. After the trip?
> > After using the book/hardware? That would, if at all, only be comparable
> > to
> > after *printing* the flyer. It was made clear, however, that the agreement
> > would be given before the printing, just after the final design was ready.
> > The common "after the fact" meaning that can applied here, is: after it
> > was
> > exactly known what would be paid for. In case of the flier that would be
> > after the final design, in the other cases after the exact specification
> > of
> > the travel/book/hardware in question.
> >
> > You disagreed with the "after the fact" definitions in both cases:
> >
> > 1.1. "Which standard? The one that the developers enjoy, where they are
> > paid before showing any results?" Apparently your "after the fact"
> > meaning
> > for books and hardware would not only include using the items, but also
> > showing results! That pretty exactly equates to requiring the printed
> > fliers to show results, i.e. attracting new people to the project.
> > Something like that has never been requested, though.
>
> On the topic of the double standard...
>
> If somebody asks for funding to pay for the transportation to a
> conference, the person is told yes or no, not "go to the conference, and
> depending on how you do, we'll see if we reimburse and how much".
>
> If a developer asks for funding to buy a book on the argument that he
> needs to to work on XXX part of the OS, he is told yes or no, not a
> "we'll decide whether we fund this after you show us the code".
>
> If a developer or the community asks for funding for hardware to write
> drivers, the answer is a yes or no, not "we will decide whether we fund
> it depending on the quality of the code".
>
> In other words, there is no metric other than the expectation of a good
> return on investment mainly based on the purpose of the item being
> funded, the known skills of the person requesting the funding, his past
> record of contributions, etc. I don't see why creating a flier should be
> different from this.
>
> On the matter of results, you are turning my argument upside down. I
> don't have to prove that the flier will give results, because my
> argument is that Haiku Inc. does in fact commit to funding without
> knowing what the actual return on the investment will be; they make an
> educated guess of what that return will be, but they don't know for sure.
>
> Now, the BOD does say that printing the flier is a good investment; but
> when it comes to making the commitment, they have added an extra
> condition that is unique to this request and has not equivalent or
> precedent; that's where the double standard exists.
>
> I strongly believe this extra condition has no practical reason; the
> more I think of it, the more I am inclined to think that it is either a
> rule for the sake of more rules or perhaps a way to assert authority for
> no practical reasons other than exerting control over people.
You're mixing up two things: The printing of the flier and the approval of
your not yet created artwork. The printing of the flier has long been
committed to. This is only about approving your new artwork. And you're
simply requesting it to be approved before anyone has seen it, heck, even
before it has been created. Comparing pre-approval of artwork yet to be
created with funding is comparing apples with oranges.
If you want a situation you can compare yours to, try this fictitious one:
8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8<
One of our German developers, let's call him Jörg, announces that he wants to
update Tracker. Tracker works but its current design is not suitable anymore;
everyone agrees that it needs to be updated. Jörg has an excellent coding
track record, so everyone is happy that he wants to do that. Since Jörg
doesn't want to waste his precious time, he requests that the developer group
guarantees now, before he has started to work on it, that his new Tracker
will be included in the next release.
This is quite unprecedented, since normally the developers decide close to a
release whether a component or feature will be included or not, so they reply
that in principle they are OK with including the new Tracker under two
conditions: 1. The code must be released under the MIT license. And 2. The
final OK to include it is given when the new Tracker is finished and everyone
has seen it.
Jörg is not happy. He's OK with the MIT license, but he really wants to have
that guarantee now. For reasons of his own he doesn't trust that bunch of
other developers. They may write that they appreciate him working on Tracker,
that they think his coding skills are excellent, and that the chances are
infinitesimally small that his new Tracker will not be approved, but Jörg
thinks they are lying.
Fortunately Jörg is very persistent, is a fast typist, and knows quite a few
techniques to bend, twist, and evade arguments in a discussion. Discussions
in which he doesn't manage to convince people are usually very long-winded
and repetitive. Mostly his oppenents get tired eventually and grant his
wishes just to stop it. Often some people get so annoyed that they start
calling him a troll or the discussion ridiculous. This is just perfect
leverage. Jörg knows how generalize those statements, escalate them,
construct a closed group of people who are attacking him, and paint himself
as the poor victim. That draws sympathy to himself and let's his opponents
look bad.
So it comes as no surprise that eventually the developer group falters, and
the next vote is decided in his favor. Jörg is a winner.
8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8< 8<
Sounds familiar? Sounds ridiculous?
> > 1.2. You expressed that the new flier design is by no means unknown, since
> > it's just an update of the old one. Matt replied that the new design will
> > differ from the old one, so it is not yet known. In fact you even admit
> > that you don't know the final design yet either: "The download page URL
> > should be added too, but beyond that I don't have a 100% clear picture
> > yet."
> >
> > To sum this up: Yes, the new flier design is yet unknown. No point to
> > argue
> > that. Furthermore if you insist on the "after the fact" definition given
> > in
> > 1.1. you are IMHO (and that of others who used the metaphor regarding this
> > point before) comparing apples with oranges. You might not agree -- I can
> > accept that -- but if you're also as tolerant to respect that others may
> > see that differently, you cannot claim that they use a different standard
> > in your case.
And here we go again. Jorge-style discussion techniques. Quote a paragraph
and write text under it, so it looks like you're replying to the given
arguments, but just "discuss" something completely different. Let's see...
> Committing funds to printing the flier does not have any more or less
> unknowns than committing funds to anything else.
This is so right, but no-one ever claimed something else.
> What you are
> conveniently leaving out of your point about the new flier being unknown
> is the key of your argument, which was that I was requesting a blank
> check.
This sentence is somewhat convoluted. You are making it sound like these are
two different things and, being the underhanded bastard that I am, I have
viciously omitted one. Requesting approval of a not yet existing artwork *is*
requesting a blank check.
> That's another half truth,
My allegedly leaving out something is a "half truth"? Even if I were leaving
something out, intentionally or unintentionally, the phrase simply doesn't
fit. Repeating it a few times in a discussion definitely serves to establish
me as a speaker of half truths, though. Even better, in later mails you can
generalize me as a group of half truth speakers attacking you. Everyone who
doesn't re-read the thread again will recall that there was something about
"half truths". Kind of a marketing technique, right?
> because:
I'm bursting with anticipation. Here come the reasons why my allegedly
leaving something out is a half truth...
> a. I have presented a clear plan of what I would do
>
> b. I agreed to peer review, so everyone would have an opportunity to
> provide input and help maintain accuracy
>
> c. There is ZERO RISK
What a let down! :-/ Just a repetition of points you have already presented.
With a. you're apparently referring to your mail that ended with "... but
beyond that I don't have a 100% clear picture yet." b. is nice, but doesn't
make the design any more known right now, which is the time you're requesting
its final approval. And c., wow, a capital zero risk!
> Given that there is a direction, a provision to allow for changes,
> absolutely no risk involved and the known skills and past achievements
> of the contributor, I can only take this "blank check" argument as
> another manifestation of a discriminatory double standard.
Another manifestation? That really makes it sound like there were any other
before. But this whole thread is only about you requesting pre-approval for
your not yet existing artwork, which a request for a blank check. And the
double standard you're trying to construct is based on your claim that
something comparable has happened before. Which is simply not the case.
The points you keep repeating just underline that the final result will be
very likely be excellent and to everyone's satisfaction -- which is preaching
to the choir, since nobody has ever suggested something else anyway -- they
just don't make the final flier design any more existing at this very moment
at which you're requesting the design to be approved.
Actually working on the flier instead of investing your time in this
"discussion" would, however, bring the final flier design closer to its
existence.
> Or are you
> saying that there is a chance that the non-profit or the project could
> suffer a loss, monetary or otherwise, from committing to funding the
> printing in advance? If so, what would that be?
You are wasting everyone's time asking these questions. Haiku, Inc. has
already committed to funding the printing. What they have not yet approved of
is the not yet existing artwork.
Just to point that out explicitly, this is another of your annoying
discussion techniques: Mix the point under discussion with some other point
everyone agrees on, then discuss the second point and make it appear as if
others disagree with it.
> > 2. Untrustworthy, Lying Haiku, Inc. BOD Members
[...]
> I am not trying to discredit anyone; I am presenting facts to make my point.
>
> That the vote was killed is a fact, by *the own admission of the (or
> some?) BOD members*, because they perceived as giving the BOD the middle
> finger and going rogue. It's unfortunate, because had they simply voted
> instead, the vote would have served its purpose. Instead, they chose to
> de-legitimize it out of emotion rather than reason.
Yes, that's how "presenting facts" looks like. Anyway, whatever you claim
here -- I really don't want to discuss that -- the fact remains that reasons
have been given (I've listed some in my previous mail), regardless of whether
you agree with them or not.
> That people are giving me lip service is also a fact; we love you, we
> trust you, we think you do a great job, blah blah blah. But when it
> comes to actually demonstrating all that trust and recognition, they
> take the opposite position. That's lip service, or hypocrisy if you prefer.
You're constructing argument cycles: The "demonstrating all that trust and
recognition" you expect is pre-approving your not yet existing flyer artwork,
which is what this thread is about. Since they are not giving this
pre-approval, they are liars. Since they are liars, you don't trust them and
want pre-approval.
> The reason I keep asking (and I still do) whether Haiku Inc. will make a
> _definitive as opposed to a tentative_ commitment to fund the printing
> is because there has been no definitive yes or no answer to that
> particular question yet than can be considered the official decision of
> the BOD. Why do I say this? Because the BOD members are sending mixed
> signals. If they have the authority (which I still question, but that's
> another matter for another time), then the least they can do is take the
> time to present the official decision as a group in unmistakable terms,
> not as separate mixed replies that contradict each other.
And again wasting everyone's time. The funding for flier printing has long be
committed to. Only the artwork approval has been postponed to the time when
it actually exists.
Jorge, I urge you to stop using your manipulative discussion techniques. We
both know how this is eventually going end: With you leaving the project
(again). And believe it or not, nobody wants that. Your contributions are
highly appreciated. Only your discussion style isn't.
CU, Ingo
Other related posts:
