Being a good critique (Was:Re: Fedora 15 installer needs more than 512MB RAM)

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 05/27/2011 06:34 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> I was using Gnome as an example of how project devs turn their backs on 
> the needs of the users.  The same thing seems to be happening, 
> gradually, with the Fedora devs, at least to the extent of not managing 
> to keep such vital things as minimum memory requirements up to date.  I 
> was pointing out that such a big project tends to become a bureaucracy 
> simply because it's almost impossible to control otherwise, and the 
> dedicated bureaucrats always end up in charge and those who actually 
> care about the project itself get pushed to the side, if they're lucky.

[Not related to just you but I am going to make a general point here]

As a general over-simplification and generalization of a complex
subject,  it seems appealing however the specific case doesn't support
your assumptions and manages to insult contributors from two different
projects in one go.  To claim, this specific instance was a example or
proof that it was all about convenience of developers requires more
evidence or atleast an attempt to have a conversation rather than a mere
drive by assertion.  It adds no value to the discussion whatsoever and
derails a pointed conversation.   If I may,  I would recommend you avoid
doing this because I really don't see any benefit in doing so and can
immediately point out several negative factors.    If you don't like the
decision not to put in a bunch of intrusive patches in the installer a
month before release,  you are free to say so and I have explained the
nature of the decision to help make a more informed opinion on this and
some people seem convinced and others have still disagreed which is
fine.  If you don't like the design of particular aspects of GNOME
Shell,  I would readily agree that you may very well have a point but
questioning the motivations of contributors is not needed or warranted
IMO.   Being a good critique involves a good understanding of the
subject matter,  considerations of both sides,  assumption of good will
and being specific.   Most importantly,  stick to technical discussions
instead of making it personal.   Let it be about the handling of the
bugs instead of about how the developers are careless or whatever.  Even
assuming some of them are,  this approach just wouldn't yield any good
results.

Rahul