[Audacity-devel] tone (was Re: 2.0 regression?)

[Vaughan J. <va...@au...>]

I'm not sure we resolved the "Stable" designation for the download page, 
but I'd prefer it stay. It is standard nomenclature, and will be even 
more appropriate for 2.0.

Gale Andrews wrote:
> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
> | Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:44:19 -0800
> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] 2.0 regression?
>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>>>>> | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> 
>>>>>>> | Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:22:04 -0800
>>>>>>> | Subject: [Audacity-devel] 2.0 regression?
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>> Gale Andrews wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
> ...[too many words on this subject!]
>
>>>>> I honestly believe you're wrong. Read the Forum and the -users list. 
>>>>>       
>>>> I believe you're entirely honest and genuine in all the opinions you 
>>>> express.
>>>>
>>>> I do read the -users list, but not the forum. Be more specific, please, 
>>>> about what you're referring to.
>>>>
>>>> If they're treating "stable" as more rock solid than you think it should 
>>>> be, fine, describe it some other way.
>>>>     
>>> I think where "you're wrong" (if I understand you) is in thinking that 
>>> users attach little or no significance to the labels we give to versions
>>> on the download pages. 
>>>   
>> I do not think that, nor did I say anything like that. I've asked you 
>> before not to put words in my mouth.
>
> Vaughan, what I was interpreting was your direct quote (and I 
> qualified it with "if I understand you"):  
>
>    "Now sounds like you don't want to drop "stable", just not use it for 
>      this release? The distinction is totally moot to most users."  
>
> I thought you meant the distinction between saying "stable" and 
> not. But thanks for clarifying.
"Moot" doesn't mean the "stable" label has no significance. I meant it 
makes no difference whether it says "stable" or nothing, the implication 
is that it's the stable release, in contrast to the "beta" next to it. 
That's what I said in the first place.


>
>  
>> ...
>> I wish these discussions didn't so often become contentious, Nietzschean 
>> struggles for dominance of who's right, rather than cooperative 
>> discussions of what's best. I know you believe your opinions strongly, 
>> but why has this kept going so long after I said I'm okay with it? Just 
>> so you could again say I'm wrong?
>
> Because you've asked something directly (as in your last message, 
> "Be more specific please"). Nothing more or less.
But you weren't more specific, just stated your general opinion again, 
which I already understood.

I meant specific messages, if you had any to point to, as you brought 
that up. I didn't think it helpful of you to just repeat that I'm wrong 
and tell me to read the entire forum and -users list archives. That is a 
good example of the contentiousness I'm talking about.

>
>  
>> It really sometimes seems you don't consider my points at all, except as 
>> specifics to contradict in proving yourself right and me wrong.
>
> I would actually like to think otherwise. I have noted your search link
> about "Stable Release". It's interesting for Chrome if they use that
> word publicly because that is a mainstream product. 
"If"? With nearly 16m citations for "stable release" you doubt that Eric 
Schmidt used that term?

> ...
>> Let's be more cooperative and less contradicting.
>
> +10, but everyone here loves Audacity, right? That's why they
> sometimes have strong views, I guess. It shouldn't make them 
> unreceptive to counter-evidence. When I was questioning what 
> I saw as the very significant problems with copying audio to the 
> system clipboard, I did explicitly ask for other views. So I'm trying,
> but I *would* question something similar again if I believed it was
> in Audacity's interest to do that. 
It's not the questioning I'm talking about. It's the intransigent 
opining, it's asserting we must do something some particular way, it's 
repeatedly asserting somebody is wrong, it's the tone. In an earlier msg 
from you in this thread, you closed with "I rest my case." We're not in 
court here. We're a team.


>
>
>> You're certainly not the only one I'm addressing this to. You mocked me 
>> before when I called for a change in "tone".
>> but I really think all these imperious emails from new participants 
>> (developer and non-developer) about how we have to do things 
>> (especially when they don't know the existing mechanisms/processes
>> nomenclature) make working on Audacity a lot less fun. And imo, they've 
>> adopted this confrontational, gotta-prove-my-point-do-or-die style
>> because it was the dominant style when they came on board. Let's all 
>> be more about suggestions than imperatives, cooperation rather than 
>> forensic victory.
>
> Agreed, but we don't like "on the other hand", do we, because it's more
> words? So pretty naturally the person who believes something strongly 
> is going to concentrate on their own arguments. I think wanting to be 
> as brief as possible doesn't always help. 
"Arguments". I'm saying these should be discussions, not battles. No 
matter how strongly we believe something, to work best together, we 
shouldn't view each other as adversaries. We shouldn't view every 
discussion as a zero sum gain where only one of us emerges victorious.

And not every comment needs response. Prefer resolution to exhaustive 
completeness.

- Vaughan