Mail Archives: cygwin/2001/06/29/10:51:00
David,
Did you read (5)? How is that different than what you're suggesting?
I don't see the difference between this professed practice of mine and
your suggestion. What did I miss?
Larry
At 07:58 AM 6/29/2001, Robinow, David wrote:
>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/
--
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 -