On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 00:29 -0800, David Fetter wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 05:40:12PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Lukas Kahwe Smith wrote:
> > > I think another point you need to bring out more clearily is that
> > > the community is also often "miffed" if they feel they have been
> > > left out of the design and testing phases. This is sometimes just
> > > a reflex that is not always based on technical reasoning. Its just
> > > that as you correctly point out are worried of being "high-jacked"
> > > by companies.
> >
> > I hate to mention an emotional community reaction in this document.
>
> You don't have to name it that if you don't want to, although respect
> (or at least a good simulation of it) is crucial when dealing with any
> person or group.
I'm very interested in this, because it does seem to me that there is an
emotional reaction to many things.
> Handing the community a /fait accompli/ is a great
> way to convey disrespect, no matter how well-meaning the process
> originally was.
In a humble, non-confrontational tone: Why/How does a patch imply a fait
accompli, or show any disrespect?
My own reaction to Teodor's recent submission, or Kai-Uwe Sattler's
recent contributions has been: great news, patches need some work, but
thanks.
Please explain on, or off, list to help me understand.
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com