On Mon, 27 Jul 2020 22:39:06 -0400, Bald Eagle wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>> I think it's fair to say that those who started the discussion have
>> been around long enough to know that it's a volunteer effort.
> 
> I think it's fair to say that the _nature_ of that "volunteering" may
> not be, and apparently isn't clear.
> It's murky and ambiguous - and that leads to assumptions about things on
> either side.  "Those in the know" and "those that aren't".
> If someone volunteers to do work at a charity or something like that,
> but when they're there they play on their cell phone, stand outside
> smoking, watching TV,
> or doing anything BUT what they putatively volunteered for...  and then
> when one of the recipients shows up looking for the product of the
> charitable effort [or lack thereof] --- I think there is going to be
> some friction.
> There's no hard and fast "deserving" and "owing" - but the charity was
> established _for the purpose of doing charity work_.
> So when the person "involved with the charity" isn't doing any
> charitable work -
> the typical minds wonders 'what they are doing there?" and WHY.

I don't think it's unclear what "volunteering" means when a project is an 
open project.  It's a little different when you're volunteering for 
Habitat for Humanity.  Those for whom you volunteer do set some 
expectations, and that's fine.

This is hardly Habitat for Humanity.

> I mean, there's not going to be a bench warrant issued for clipka or
> anyone else who's left, but it's easy to post a one liner saying that
> you won't be back for a while - or ever.  If someone doesn't call in to
> he charity they volunteer at, is it _unreasonable_ for someone to call
> them and ask why they didn't show up, if they'll be back, etc?
> 
> My point is that _whatever_ goes on HERE is different than that, and in
> order to make it clear and avoid any future misunderstandings by anyone
> about anything, that point should be clarified and posted at the
> entryway, and distributed with the Read Me.
> That's my suggestion.

It should be pretty abundantly clear now, if it wasn't before.  I mean, 
all one has to do is look at when the last release was in any code 
project (or the last commits) to see how active the project is.

>> Indeed, the individual who started the entire discussion is one of the
>> most prolific posters in these forums.
> 
> jr (he is?)

Yes.  I happened to run some stats (not to see how vocal anyone is, that 
was just a side effect; I was looking to see what the most commonly used 
access to these forums was.  I was quite surprised to learn that it is 
still generally newsreaders rather than the web interface).  It was 
something I volunteered to do.  200,000 messages, more or less, since 
about 1996, across all groups (p.b.i is the largest group by far; but off-
topic is IIRC the second).

>> I think it's reasonable to expect that volunteers do with their time
>> what they want to do with their time, and if that means releases are
>> slower than one might expect, well, that's the nature of software
>> developed by volunteers.
> 
> It is.  The point is that it's ALSO reasonable for many of the 10
> billion people on this planet to expect that the volunteer will at some
> point be doing what they volunteered to do.  And I specifically mean
> that not in a selfish and entitled "expect"  way, but from a "well what
> the heck is going on, then" way.

It's pretty easy to assume that people have lives outside of what they 
volunteer to do, and they get busy.

And when there's a pandemic on, well, if someone's not right on the nose 
with when you ask what's going on, that seems a little.....impatient.  
Unthinking.

> I mean, I read virtually every post, every day, and have for --- 7 years
> now?
> I answer questions, research documentation, find and fix source code
> bugs, make and fix objects and textures for people, and even sometimes
> write entire scene files with includes and macros.

Indeed, you volunteer and help folks out quite a bit.  That analysis that 
I did also identified you as being quite busy here :)

> But was it apparent to me that the only person left is Chris Cason?  No.
> Certainly I had assumed that there was this "list" of people that
> conducted official POV-Ray business and knew the secret handshake and
> did all of the things that magically happen on GitHub and FlySpray and
> the website and other places - M. Grimbert, Mr. Pokorny, the now
> vanished C. Lipka, ...
> It simply comes as a surprise when people involved mention that "Oh, we
> haven't heard from THAT guy for 2, 5, 10 years...."

Time moves on.  I find it hard to believe that when I was laid off from a 
job I really enjoyed was nearly 10 years ago.  Seems like yesterday in 
some respects.  I joke at work "how is it July?  Last I checked, it was 
January....of 2019!"  It's easy to lose track of time.

>> Those who want it to move faster can learn how to code (or contribute
>> in other ways).
> 
> They can... But as I pointed out, it's not as simple as that, especially
> when you're "on the outside" and "in the dark".
> "If you don't like it here, leave."
> "If you don't speak [C++], go back to [wherever you came from."
> Like that?

Of course not.  But coding isn't the only way in which one can 
contribute.  As I mentioned elsewhere, complaining about broken links is 
something that anyone can do.  Listing broken links, finding the 
replacement URLs (if they exist), and documenting them?  That's *also* 
something anyone can do, and is a bit more helpful.  I know - that was 
something I spent some time on the last time we did broken link 
checking.  It's work that's easy enough to do, though it is tedious.

My point is that asking questions is *fine*.  Demanding answers is 
*not*.  And instead of creating a long bitchlist of things you wish were 
better, saying "here's something that I think needs some help, and I can 
help with it" is how things can get done in an open source project (or a 
project where a community is working together).

> Suppose that Stephen takes it upon himself to volunteer to do some
> amazing mesh work with all the breast-jiggle that anyone could ever hope
> to see, and every facet of his project is POV-Ray this and POV-Ray
> that....
> I'm sure some special little snowflake will be ALL OVER him about what
> he can and cannot do.

Of course.  And I would expect the community to be all over that 
individual for demanding that Stephen "fix" the work that he put in 
because it doesn't work to their specifications.

> Now maybe he CAN, and there's jack that anyone can do about it.
> But I'm proposing that your average person might not be so assertive in
> their grabbing what they perceive is someone else's bull by the horns
> and leading it off to a livestock show where they show it off.

At that point, it's best to ASK how one can help out.  Not demand that 
something be fixed.  Not pretend (or act) like you're the other person's 
boss.

> Can I just go ahead and make some social media accounts under "POV-Ray"?

You ask Chris.  That's pretty straightforward.

>  Do _I_
> decide what content to post?  Am I now affiliated with POV-Ray because I
> say so?

No, and no.  You ask Chris.  It's his project.

> Do I now speak on behalf of POV-Ray, because I feel like it? Can I post
> other people's work with whatever attributions may exist, so that people
> can see what POV-Ray can do?

If they give you permission, yes.  If they don't, now.  Rights still 
exist.  I don't see this as rocket science.  If an image (or someone's 
work) is copyrighted, you ask.  If it isn't, or you don't know, you ask 
them if you can share it.

I suspect most people learned this stuff in kindergarten.  How to share.  
How to not take stuff that isn't yours.  How to ask if you can play with 
their toy.

> I mean, on the one hand, there are people who get their panties all in a
> twist, wring their hands, and clutch their pearls over "intellectual
> property rights" and licenses, concerning macros and include files
> written by people that no one hears from anymore and no one can even be
> certain if they're even still alive. So on the other hand, without
> someone, somewhere, "officially" associated with the POV-Ray project,
> team, company, etc communicating with them in some way to clarify
> things, most people are going to experience a bit of apprehension and
> timidity.
> And WHO do they contact?  It's not like there's a list of email
> addresses prominently posted anywhere.

Chris owns the project.  If there's ever a question, you ask Chris.  
Again, I don't see this as a difficult thing to understand.

>> Further, to state that some individuals (such as myself) should not be
>> "wasting time with a discussion" but instead get in there and work on
>> the wiki (or whatever)
> 
> This does not seem materially different from you telling someone else
> that they should learn to code or do something productive.

But it is.

If I tell you "get on fixing the wiki" - I'm acting like your boss.  I'm 
not your boss; if you feel like fixing the wiki (and have the knowledge 
and access to do so), that's up to you.

Telling someone "if you think things are broken, ask how you can help 
fixing them" is empowering someone who sees something as broken to help 
make it not be broken.  It's saying "here's how you can help".

Those are materially different things.

>> is exactly a sense of "entitlement" - it's that entitlement of telling
>> someone who volunteers their time what they should do with their free
>> time.
> 
> But they're NOT telling you what to do with your free time.   They're
> looking at/to you as a volunteer and commenting on what they think would
> be best for you to do _when you're volunteering_.

Actually, that very specific thing happened in this very thread.  And I 
*was* told what to do with my free time.

>> Unless I ask someone for ideas about where I might help out, nobody has
>> the right to tell a volunteer (or anyone who's officially involved in
>> the project) how to spend their free time.
> 
> People have a Right to say whatever they want.   You have a Right to
> ignore them, be offended, feel threatened, to do something else, to
> disagree with them,
> throw a tantrum, or whatever.  You don't have the authority to muzzle
> anyone. People always try to coerce others into silence, especially when
> it's by proxy. “When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving
> him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might
> say.” ― George R.R. Martin

Fair point.  Anyone can say what they want.  In a civilized society, we 
consider things like how effective it is to actually approach a problem 
in a particular way.  How to be kind to people by default.

We seem to have forgotten this (especially these days, with people being 
rude about people not wearing masks, and people being rude about being 
told to put on a damn mask so they don't spread a deadly disease).  
Everyone's so concerned about THEIR rights, they forget that OTHER people 
have rights, too, and that if we treated each other with a little 
kindness, the world might just be a better place.

>> That is precisely where my objection to the entire thing comes from.
>> That expectation that a member of the community who hasn't offered a
>> specific way in which they may help (but who, in fairness, has said
>> that they were willing to help) can make demands on the time of people
>> who volunteer (time, money, resources, whatever) is unreasonable.
> 
> I dislike much of the overly pedantic fuckery on some of the interweb
> sites to the point where it's nearly intolerable. Normal people would
> take up the offer and continue a colloquial conversation by suggesting
> what they _could_ do, or asking what they think they might be able to
> help with or what their experience is.
> And he's not making _demands_.  And really, who cares if he was.
> He's popping a gasket because everything has seemingly ground to a halt,
> and there was an absence of information as to how things worked and why.

Well, I see it differently; he demanded answers, he got pissed off at 
Chris for taking a few days longer to get things together because Chris 
was waiting for responses from people whom he needed answers from before 
he could respond.  Could Chris have given an update saying that?  Sure.  
Did he?  No.  Did he have reasons why he didn't?  Ultimately, doesn't 
matter - Chris decided how to handle it, and JR got pissed off because 
Chris wasn't fast enough.

During a global pandemic.  Because heaven forbid if JR's questions 
shouldn't be Chris' top priority before anything else going on in his 
life.

>> And left alone, those "demands" will be repeated.
> 
> "This needs to be fixed."
> It could be interpreted as a "demand" - but it's fundamentally an
> assertive observation.

Yes.  Maybe instead of "this needs to be fixed", how about "I'm looking 
for information about x, can someone help me?"

> If everyone who walked into a charity tripped over the threshold of the
> entry door and then finally someone said something about it, I'm _pretty
> sure_ that the response wouldn't be "Who let YOU in, and what did you do
> to offer to fix it?  Why don't you go learn some carpentry and fix it
> yourself?  Can't you see this is a charity, staffed with volunteers?
> Maybe you should just go away."

Different situation.  Nobody's physical safety was threatened by Chris' 
lack of response or the lack of recent releases of POV-Ray.

>> So let's disabuse anyone of the notion right now that when people
>> volunteer to do something, nobody has any right to expect anything from
>> those doing the work.
> 
> People have a Right to expect whatever they want - and to be
> disappointed.

I pity the person who goes around being disappointed that people aren't 
responding fast enough to inquiries about software development generally 
used by hobbyists for fun.

>> Asking politely for what's happening is one thing.  Putting together a
>> laundry list of complaints (and prefacing it with "those of a delicate
>> disposition should stop reading now" indicates that the author clearly
>> KNEW they were complaining to people they had no right to be
>> complaining to).
> 
> In general, this is preferably the way things ought to happen.
> But anyone who has lived out in real world knows that sometimes people
> are asleep, in their own little worlds, and ignoring more than they
> should.

True.

> And in order for anything to happen, they need to Make A Big Noise and
> shake people out of the rut.

And in some circumstances, that's appropriate.  Rioting in Portland? 
Police brutality?  Bad decision making that's hurting everyone because we 
can't learn to put a damn mask on because "freedom" over "showing 
compassion for other people?"  Probably all good things to make a little 
bit of a stink about.

My favorite free software not being updated?  Maybe tone it down a bit 
first and ask how one can help before unloading with both barrels - and 
as noted, jr's initial post made it clear he *knew* he was being rude, 
and he didn't care to refocus his questions in more constructive way.

And now that action is happening, he's happy to consider his approach a 
*success*.  It's encouraged the same kind of rudeness for future 
questions.

That's a terrible precedent.

>> I have a problem with being told that my statements "lack veracity".  I
>> have *never* been untruthful in my statements here - and I make a point
>> of not "playing games" or being untruthful or misleading people.
> 
> I suppose I have no real option other than to accept that at face value.

Sure.  But maybe giving me the benefit of the doubt until proven wrong is 
a good approach.  I try to give everyone that, and while I sometimes am 
disappointed, I more often than not am not.

>> I'm happy to move past that part of the conversation, but I feel it
>> important to make it clear what my issue is with this whole thing - as
>> someone who has, on occasion, felt motivated to pitch in in what ways I
>> am able to (and who is entirely willing to do it again, time
>> permitting).
> 
> And so you have.

Indeed.  I like to do as I say.  Another thing that I'm told I am good at 
- maintaining a high "do/say" ratio.

> Just curious:
> How much of your life have you allowed jr to take up because "someone
> [him] on the Internet was WRONG!!" ?

More than I should have.  I usually just ignore it.  But sometimes, I 
just have to speak MY mind when I see someone being rude.  As I noted 
before (in different words), communities that self-police (and this one 
is like that) depend on people standing up and saying "knock it off" 
every once in a while.

As an example, the amateur radio community doesn't work if it isn't self-
policed.  In the US, we're expected to follow the FCC rules around use of 
the airwaves, but the FCC doesn't enforce it - we enforce it ourselves, 
because we don't want the bandwidth to be given to someone else.

I've been doing online community stuff since I was a teenager in the mid 
80s.  There have always been people with that sense of 'entitlement'.  
There always will be, and with social media, that has gotten worse.

Treating people with respect and dignity is something that should be the 
default behavior, and when it doesn't happen, it needs to be called out 
for what it is.  That's one of the few ways to correct the patterns we 
see now.

Just shutting up and hoping it will go away hasn't worked, and it won't 
work.  As Scott Adams once wrote in a Dilbert comic, "you're awfully 
brave in cyberspace, flame-boy" (not directed at you, BTW - just a 
general comment on the nature of how people talk a big game on the 
Internet and say things that until recently, they never would have said 
face-to-face.  Sadly, the world has shifted in the wrong direction, and 
more people are feeling like they can act that way in the real world, 
too.)

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message