Open Stack

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Matt Riedemann wrote:

> What's really baffling to me is when I'm in the hallway with you and Matt 
> Booth and others talking about this stuff face to face in person, and 
> explaining my side of the issue, and I'm listening to yours, we seem to all 
> be nodding our heads and agreeing, or at least understanding a bit better. 
> But then when we get back to the world it's all us vs them and 'a lot of 
> people are saying nova sucks and they are ready to give up'.

I'm going to focus on this paragraph because it feels like the most
important part. You seem to think we disagree and that there is
some kind of us or them thing going on. For the most part we agree,
notably on the bit about saying "no". I think we need to do that
even more and I deeply sympathize with the soul crushing nature of
that constantly defensive position. It sucks for everyone involved
yet the truth is that it is probably sucks more for the person who
has to say no frequently (you, Dan, Sean) than it does for the
person who gets to hear "no" every now and again. I'm extremely
sorry all of you have to deal with that, I wish it wasn't the
case and it was easier to communicate the situation or spread the
load. The fact that the two camps that I mentioned have not
resolved to a solid and constantly republished decision makes your
life harder. It doesn't have to be like that.

You've somehow managed to cast me into the position of someone is
"not getting enough attention". I've said time and again that that
is not my concern. I can't be a top ten committer or reviewer (I've
been in and out of both of those groups for the past few months) in
nova and be suffering from a lack of attention.

My concern is with the long term health and pleasantness of Nova and
because of the way I think and the way I understand things my
tendency is to try to find the fundamental reasons things are the
way they are and the ways things are stuck and to try to have
converastions with people to either verify or dismiss that analysis
and to come up with ways to make some kind of forward progress.

This has turned out not to work so well because what it ends being
perceived as either me being a whiny little brat or turning over
rocks that shouldn't be turned because it upsets the status quo.
That's distressing when what I'm trying to do is be helpful. Over the
months I've had some excellent advice from Dan and Sean on how to be
a little more circumspect. I've not always been successful, but
I've tried and I'm thankful for their input.

The thing I learned in BCN, the thing that is the new ingredient in
my analysis (you know, in that continued search for fundamental
reasons things sometimes suck) is that I had the rumors (which I've
known for some time) of the deep rifts in trust that exist inter- and
intra- nova confirmed. How do I know this? Because people kept coming and
telling me: nova contributors, nova cores, people who gave up on
nova, members of the TC, random people I've never heard of. Yes that
'speaker of the people' thing really is tiring!

So when I saw that the conversation about mdbooth's proposal was
"stuck" I thought I would do that thing I try to do: point out what
appears to be some of the underlying reasons. I didn't say "omg all the
nova cores are big jerks and I hate them" because that would be a lie.
I suspect I could have been more explicit about "I'm saying these things
because I'd really like nova to be more fun and successful for everyone
involved".

I guess I assumed that would be inferred on faith. As in it would be
understood because of trust. Why isn't it?

I think we are a "we" and we want the same thing in the end. We may
disagree on how to get there but I view the process of resolving that
disagreement and reaching compromise as the critical path to reaching a
good outcome.

> There, now I feel equally terrible and relieved. I really don't want to be 
> anyone's barrier, and I feel great when I'm able to help someone out, new 
> contributor or not. I don't really know what else to say. I know all of this 
> probably doesn't mean anything and there will be a massive reply thread 
> discounting each point and exquisite detail about how I'm wrong - that's 
> fine, it's what I get for taking the bait to respond in detail to something 
> like this. But I felt the need to do so.

I'm glad you did. I wish more people would. I really hate the way
that people think communicating is such a drag and a bad thing. I
know more now than I did before I read your message. Surely that's
a good thing? I'm not sure why you should feel terrible. Did you
tell the truth as you see it? Great. Good on you. I'm grateful. And
I'm glad you feel relieved.

Thank you.

-- 
Chris Dent               ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ)        https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent                                         tw: @anticdent