Comments on: Critique & self-critique

By: qgil

qgil — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 21:04:46 +0000

@Dscho please check your sources. I’m not blocking Theora in HTML5 (I’m not even remotely involved in that process) and I’m advocating for open standards within my modest possibilities for over a decade now (including this past year working at Nokia).

I didn’t run for reelection just because I hadn’t put the time needed in the board this year and I didn’t expect this to improve next year.

By: Dscho

Dscho — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 20:01:55 +0000

If it is true what they say about you blocking Theora in HTML5, I quite welcome your move not to run for director of GNOME again. Because blocking open standards is just disgusting.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:02:47 +0000

For someone like me who has no idea what all the bickering is about, this is pretty sad to see. Are these people children or adults? If they are actually over the age of 12, they should just grow up and learn to deal with conflict and disagreement like adults. Otherwise their parents should send them to bed with out any dinner and take away their internet privileges. What utter nonsense.

By: bkor

bkor — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:40:50 +0000

Luarvique: Those examples have no relation to being a board member.

By: Luarvique L. Luravique

Luarvique L. Luravique — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:24:36 +0000

> Note that “performance” and “progress” are subjective values.
> I can honestly think I have shown a good performance and I have
> contributed a good amount of progress through my actions.
> You can honestly think the opposite about me. There is no way to
> objectivize this without some kind of public evaluation.
There is a plenty of ways, in terms of new applications released, new features added, bugs fixed, copies downloaded, etc. etc. All these are numbers. They do allow for some subjectivity in interpretation, but not for a huge lot.

By: qgil

qgil — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:16:18 +0000

Note that “performance” and “progress” are subjective values. I can honestly think I have shown a good performance and I have contributed a good amount of progress through my actions. You can honestly think the opposite about me. There is no way to objectivize this without some kind of public evaluation.

In a professional job you get evaluated all the time. In a volunteering context fortunately not, but this leads easily towards lack of critique or some kind of controversy/confrontation.

Not easy, but probably not that relevant either – personal differences apart. No matter who is elected to the board next year, what Murray or Jeff do in their contributions, the GNOME project will do more or less equally good or bad.

By: Luarvique L. Luravique

Luarvique L. Luravique — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 09:13:20 +0000

>There is not a mechanism for evaluation or even self evaluation, besides
> you being free to speak out or shut up.
But *there is* a such a mechanism. Open or not, you evaluate your performance by the amount of progress being made by the project because of your actions. The rest is just irrelevant chatter.

By: Life is so good, it gets better every day » Blog Archive » GNOME Handbagging

Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:33:00 +0000

[...] Quim: There’s critique and there’s personal attacks – it’s a very, very fine line that we all need to be aware of. Calling Jeff a “psychotic failure”, “erratic fool” or “paranoid psycho” is anything but constructive, and in all honesty, pretty laughable given Jeff’s involvement within GNOME over the years and the contributions he’s made. Jeff’s a very close personal friend, has been nothing other than inspirational and supportive to me during my career, and I respect him highly to be a good visionary for the project. Sorry Murray, but I strongly disagree with you, and I’m disappointed that todays commentary on Planet GNOME has taken away from the positivity of the election campaign and those standing to help out in the running of the GNOME Foundation (let alone the people who are watching from outside the community). [...]