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: <4.3.1.2.20010629104715.0218fef8@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 10:48:53 -0400
To: "Robinow, David" <drobinow AT dayton DOT adroit DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: RE: "shouted down", "shot down", apologies
In-Reply-To: <80575AFA5F0DD31197CE00805F650D7602CF57@wilber.adroit.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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/