C++ roadmap

[Brian Goetz]

Look, it's quite simple.  This list is for coordination of those who are 
contributing to the project.  If you want to contribute, you know how.  
But what you seem to want is to run the project and tell everyone what 
their priorities should be.  That's not how any of this works, and 
you've been told that several times already.

You've tried hard to influence the direction and priorities (which is 
fine to do, if you do it constructively), and have come up short.  Has 
you considered the reason is simply that your ideas aren't as great as 
you think?  Or that you're just not doing a good job of communicating 
why you think this is the most important thing we should be working on?  
Or that you just haven't built enough credibility in this community, 
having not actually done any work here?  After all, despite many tries, 
you have gained little influence over those actually doing the work.

In any case, it's time to either disagree and commit, or stop getting in 
the way of those doing the work.  Whining about "broken community" isn't 
helpful (and this surely isn't the place to do it; you could have showed 
up at the OpenJDK Committers Workshop to discuss it.)  It's possible, 
after making more significant contributions, you will gain more 
influence, and have better luck getting your ideas accepted.  But 
expecting to have influence before you've contributed anything is pure 
entitlement-think.

In any case, I don't think there's any point in further 
meta-discussion.  We have work to do.


On 8/21/2019 7:58 AM, Samuel Audet wrote:
> Take it easy Brian. I did say I was being sarcastic and that I was 
> sorry! Don't feed the trolls :) I'm not as emphatic about it as I used 
> to be. If Swift one day replaces Java, so be it. I'm just trying to do 
> something about it because Swift isn't even trying to do something 
> like GraalVM. We have people like Luke and John-Val that come by here 
> and ask meaningful questions, but they just get ignored. Why do you 
> guys do that? Why not put a FAQ with at least a single question it:
>
> * Why is Panama not considering LLVM and GraalVM?
> GraalVM isn't mature enough and LLVM isn't standard enough, yet.
>
> I'm sure we'll need to add more there, but AFAIU that's the gist of 
> it. Could you please put that up somewhere on the website? You'll be 
> able to get rid of a lot "trolls" like me that way at least! :)
>
>> If you're ready to step up and really contribute -- for example, as 
>> Jorn has -- then, great.  But if you're just going to whine about 
>> "you're doing it wrong", this isn't the place to do it.  This list is 
>> for discussions on the development of the project -- and as far as I 
>> can see, you're not involved in the development, you're just 
>> criticizing the directions and priorities (and whining about why 
>> others won't spent more money on your personal priorities.) 
>
> The only contributions that OpenJDK accept are the ones that align 
> perfectly with whatever the leaders of OpenJDK want them to be. There 
> is no room for discussion, no room for change. That's not how you get 
> to build a community. I'm not any better at it mind you, but I know 
> when I see something that doesn't work. Jorn is fine with that, but 
> I'm not, and I don't see a lot of contributions to Panama from 
> industry leaders like Amazon, Azul, IBM, or RedHat either.
>
> Samuel
>
>
> On 8/17/19 11:07 PM, Brian Goetz wrote:
>>
>>>  I consider those messages a "contribution". 
>>
>> Critics always do :(
>>
>> There's a world of difference between the first one or two "have you 
>> thought about it from this direction" mail, and continuing, over a 
>> long period of time, to whine about "you're going in the wrong 
>> direction." The first time, you might be telling people something 
>> they don't already know -- and that is often a genuine contribution.  
>> (In fact, "tell us something we don't know" is often the only sort of 
>> contribution that doesn't involve buckling down for some hard work.  
>> But by definition, the second time, it is known.) But continuing to 
>> hammer on "I like my ideas/solutions/priorities better", without 
>> adding new information to the discussion, can quickly become an 
>> anti-contribution.
>>
>> It's clear that you think the priorities for this project should be 
>> different, and you have a right to that opinion.  But at some point, 
>> when you have failed to convince others that you are right, it's time 
>> to either "disagree and commit", or, step away, or step up and 
>> actually contribute something tangible and see if others agree on its 
>> merit. Being an armchair critic is not a contribution, no matter how 
>> many years you spend at it. Complaining that "those guys have the 
>> wrong priorities" is not a contribution.  "You've got it wrong" is 
>> not a contribution. It's just getting in the way of the people 
>> actually doing the work.
>>
>>> Agreed, I should try to find a way to say this less sarcastically, 
>>> I'm sorry about that, but you're right, I am after all frustrated.
>>
>> In that spirit, sometimes it's not obvious to ourselves how 
>> unconstructive we're being when we're frustrated, so let me point out 
>> a few you might have missed.
>>
>>> It's good to hear that you're actually starting to think about the 
>>> real problems. 
>> The way you've used the word "real" here is not constructive; just 
>> because _you_ have a different set of priorities for this project, 
>> doesn't make yours any more "real".  So if you're trying to not be 
>> sarcastic and unconstructive, this is a probably word to stop using.
>>
>>> I'm looking forward to see how "soon" 
>>
>> This is even worse.  I hope I don't have to explain why.
>>
>>> which I've been writing about on this forum for over 5 years now.
>>
>> Also not helpful.
>>
>>> Others like Luke and Cyprien do understand the importance of this
>>
>> Also not helpful.
>>
>>> OpenJDK still doesn't get it
>>
>> Also not helpful.
>>
>> If you're ready to step up and really contribute -- for example, as 
>> Jorn has -- then, great.  But if you're just going to whine about 
>> "you're doing it wrong", this isn't the place to do it. This list is 
>> for discussions on the development of the project -- and as far as I 
>> can see, you're not involved in the development, you're just 
>> criticizing the directions and priorities (and whining about why 
>> others won't spent more money on your personal priorities.)
>>
>>
>