Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/06/29/09:06:29
Larry, have you considered just shutting up when you don't know the answer?
> From: Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) [mailto:lhall AT rfk DOT com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:28 PM
> To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
> Subject: Re: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies
> This is exactly my approach as well. I have to say that I'm a bit
> dismayed that folks contributing to this and the "blunt tools" thread
> have mentioned dissatisfaction with what seemed to me to be such a
> straight-forward and logical approach. When responding to queries on
> this list, I've always followed these simple rules:
>
> 1. If I know the question is an FAQ, I point to the entry
> there (*very*
> rarely do I just point at the FAQ without the exact entry).
> Generally I feel there's little benefit to restating
> what's in the
> FAQ. It just doesn't seem to be a good use of my time. If its
> inadequate in some way, we'll hear about it and make
> the appropriate
> change (which seems to me as it should be).
>
> 2. If I kn
> ow something specific about the subject, I respond with it.
> Sometimes this means I have to ask a question or two before I'm
> sure what's been tried already and whether the poster
> is aware of
> a previous discussion on the subject. That all seems
> like part of
> the process to me and I don't begrudge people for it.
>
> 3. If I know that this subject has come up before and has been
> discussed but don't remember allot of details, I point to the
> email archives. In this case, I don't point to a
> specific message,
> although I do occasionally offer a search key that I think might
> help find the discussion I recall. I don't spend my
> time looking
> up the exact archive entry or entries that I'm
> recalling. I don't
> even promise that the stuff I'm remembering is even
> helpful (though
> that's my intent and what I'm hoping for!) I'm just providing
> potential source of information that may prove useful.
> It may not
> too. If it doesn't or its too hard to find, I expect
> the original
> poster will query the list again with an update of the
> things tried
> and the results. If there's no success at this point,
> I sometimes
> see if there's something more specific I can find
> myself and post
> that if so.
>
> 4. If the question being answered is specific and detailed enough
> that an inspection of the source is likely to be the
> only path to
> a useful answer (barring someone else who has been in
> the source,
> knows the answer, and will subsequently offer it), I *suggest*
> looking at the source. I do this when its clear someone is a
> developer or has mentioned they are working with some
> other source.
> I mention it if I'm not sure whether the person is a
> developer or
> not, usually pointing out that it is an option if they're up to
> it. I tend not to mention it if the person states that
> they have
> no experience reading/writing code. Generally, I don't feel
> obli
> gated to go inspect the source to answer someone else's question,
> although there are exceptions or times I do it anyway.
>
> 5. If I know nothing about the subject, I keep my mouth shut.
>
> I've used all five of these modes in the past on this list
> and seen them
> work, at least on some occasions, exactly as I expected them
> to. We've
> heard back from people who've had a hard time with an FAQ
> entry. We've
> heard from people who say they've searched the archives but turned up
> nothing. We've heard back from people saying they're not capable of
> looking at the source for one reason or another. To me, all of this
> seems reasonable dialog in the course of trying to help
> someone with a
> problem. I've always felt that providing some information,
> be it direct
> or a pointer to something which could be helpful is better
> than no answer
> at all (indeed, this list has more than once in the past been berated
> for *not* responding in some way to a post!) However, it troubles me
> that some in the recent discussions have pointed to the replies with
> references to previous discussions and the FAQ as "non-answers" (I'm
> using this term generally now although I know it was a
> specific member
> of the previous discussions that first offered it up and it may have
> applied in that case to a problem with the specific set of
> tools in use
> at the time. I think it categorizes a general sentiment I got from
> reading these threads though). The impression I'm left with is that
> there is at least some people on this list that feel these
> "non-answers"
> are offered in spite. I'm not sure how prevalent this view
> is or where
> the feeling comes from. It's certainly not my intent when I
> provide such
> an answer, as I've clarified above. I know I don't sit in my chair
> reading email, jealously holding onto all the answers, and responding
> with pointers (or worse, some obtuse reference), just to throw someone
> off the track or to keep them chasing an answer I know. I
> provide the
> best answer I can at the time and I expec
> t if it doesn't meet the need,
> someone will speak up. If the poster does follow-up, I or
> someone else
> may be able to help home in on the it a little more and
> provide a better
> solution or pointer. Perhaps others have a different agenda when
> answering, although I've pretty much read every post on this
> list for the
> last 5+ years and I've never been left with that impression. YMMV.
>
> So I guess what I'd like to say is, let's not throw around
> accusations
> of this sort. If you receive a response to your query and
> its not what
> you want, you're free to use it or not. Query further if you
> like too.
> Don't expect others have all the answers or be willing to
> look into the
> details of all your problems. I'm not saying that people
> won't fix your
> problems or help you do so. But they're going to do it their way, in
> their time, and at their option. If that's not what you need
> or want, you
> can again query further but keep in mind that you're dealing with
> volunteers here. Pushing may have the opposite reaction to
> your intended
> goal. I actually think its a shame for people to be critical in the
> face of someone's sincere intent to help the poster address
> their issue.
> After all, the responder is only trying to provide useful
> information or
> be truthful about their level of personal involvement in any
> implementation of a solution. That all seems pretty reasonable and
> professional to me, even if the result is not something the
> poster wants
> to hear. However, the impression I'm getting from the
> discussion is that
> unless someone is willing to provide any and all support for an issue,
> in the form the poster wants it, then no response is
> preferable to some
> response. I guess I can live with that, if that's what the list in
> general wants but I personally feel it would make for a much
> less helpful
> and active community. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe its time for
> me personally
> to adjust my level of participation in Cygwin, since I see my way of
> contributing could be construed as fitting the pattern of "
> discouragement"
> as defined by others. Hm, maybe. I'll have to think a little more
> about that. As is always the case, we can all use a little more free
> time! ;-) Anyway, since we've all been sharing our thoughts on this
> matter I thought I'd offer mine, since its a slightly different than
> some of the those posted earlier. I'm really for the idea of
> having a
> Cygwin community. So far, I believe its been a great
> success. I hope it
> continues to be in some form! :-) Actually, this is a good
> time for me
> to say "thanks" to all those who work to provide and improve
> Cygwin and
> its tools. I don't do this enough. This is really top-notch
> stuff! :-)
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -