Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID: <018001c10089$1bd30ba0$6409000a@msmeby>
From: "Michael L. Smeby, Jr." <msmeby AT nicusa DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>, "Larry Hall \(RFK Partners, Inc\)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
References: <002d01c0ffa4$5ecd82e0$b3020a0a AT SRST20><20010627205132 DOT C26445 AT redhat DOT com><002d01c0ffa4$5ecd82e0$b3020a0a AT SRST20> <4 DOT 3 DOT 1 DOT 2 DOT 20010628104317 DOT 0164a140 AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com>
Subject: Re: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 06:48:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I'm a complete newbie to Cygwin, but I use it here for various reasons, and
I think that between the great people on this list and the  documentation
and FAQs all over the web, I have yet to have a question that I couldn't
find the answer to in less than ten to thirty minutes (and I've had some
obscure ones). The volunteer work on the entire project is almost
overwhelming, and I haven't seen anyone just shrug off questions or cop an
attitude.

Just my two cents worth. You guys are appreciated .... I'll shut up now and
return to lurking. :-)

===
"Ahhh, the old take over the world ploy!" -- The Mummy Returns
Regards, Michael L. Smeby, Jr.
http://www.tampagov.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
To: <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies


> At 10:22 AM 6/28/2001, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >I won't comment on the rest of your message except to say that I rarely,
> >if ever, say "use the source" when I know the answer to the question.
> >
> >I say that when I don't know and when *I* would have to look things up.
> >
> >You're welcome to continue to ask "newbie" questions as frequently as
> >you like.  That will not stop me (or others, I presume) from pointing
> >people to references or suggesting the source when I don't know the
> >answer myself.
> >
> >I don't work for anyone here.  I am not obligated to look things up to
> >make your life easier.  It is that simple.
>
> [long - those uninterested in this thread want to hit delete now! :-) ]
>
> 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! :-)
>
>
>
>
> Larry Hall                              lhall AT rfk DOT com
> RFK Partners, Inc.                      http://www.rfk.com
> 118 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
> Holliston, MA 01746                     (508) 893-9889 - FAX
>
>
>
> --
> 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/