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 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.

> Indeed, the
> individual who started the entire discussion is one of the most prolific
> posters in these forums.

jr
(he is?)

> 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.

Perhaps think, believe, suppose, assume, trust, imagine, reckon, forecast,
calculate, presume, foresee, conjecture, surmise, think likely, anticipate, look
forward to, predict, envisage, await, hope for, contemplate, look ahead to,
want, wish, hope for, and possibly even count on or rely upon would be more to
your personal liking.


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.
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...."

> 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?

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.
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.

Can I just go ahead and make some social media accounts under "POV-Ray"?  Do _I_
decide what content to post?  Am I now affiliated with POV-Ray because I say so?
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?
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.


> 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.

> 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_.
Everyone has an opinion.  Sometimes you even get to hear about them.
In or out.  Don't stand in the doorway - you're letting the flies in.

> 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.



> 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.

> 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.
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."

> 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.

> 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.
And in order for anything to happen, they need to Make A Big Noise and shake
people out of the rut.
Oh well.
It seems that the rude customer making a scene has caused the Management to look
at things with fresh eyes, and I'm quite happy that this scandalous outburst has
gotten people to chime in and TALK and exchange information and suggestions, and
ideas, and maybe even inspire new purpose.   Hungry people slaughter sacred
cows.


The shell cracks, its insides come out and everything changes. To someone who

Cynthia Occelli

> I have no problem with questions.  I have a problem with rudeness and the
> presumption that one is entitled to anything where a project run by
> volunteers is concerned.

vide supra.

> 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.

> Not that I expect the perpetrator of
> those statements to correct themselves - they've demonstrated that they
> don't care about correcting the record when they've made an error.

Third party dispute.  Not my circus.  Not my monkeys.

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

Post a reply to this message