[Adium-devl] Tone of forum posts
Peter Hosey
prh at boredzo.org
Sun Sep 17 11:20:38 UTC 2006
On Sep 17, 2006, at 02:32:18, Christopher Forsythe wrote:
> If you aren't sure that what you are posting is going to be out of
> line, run it by someone else, or something.
I'll share a brief anecdote about this.
A user named David Strumsky posted a message to feedback@ last month
titled “Beta Crash on Startup”. He said (in part):
> Could not file bug report - page said problem is "fixed" but I
> still have problem. (Usually you guys say "problem exists until
> update" but now I find no note of this.)
>
> The new version of Adium Beta (1.0b11) crashes on startup.
The ticket he was referring to was <http://trac.adiumx.com/ticket/
5405>. As you can see, the ticket clearly says it was filed against
b11. As we all know, this means that it would be fixed in b12.
Here's what I *didn't* answer him with:
> On Aug 29, 2006, at 22:18:42, David Strumsky wrote:
>> Could not file bug report - page said problem is "fixed" but I
>> still have problem. (Usually you guys say "problem exists until
>> update" but now I find no note of this.)
>
> We only say that when somebody reopens a ticket that we closed as
> fixed because their problem didn't go away without them updating.
>
> The ticket (#5405) was filed against b11. We do not change the copy
> of Adium that you have without your knowledge and consent; for you
> to expect your b11 to suddenly be fixed implies that you expect
> that we do. We roll the fix into the next version, which means that
> you must update to the newer version to get the fix.
>
> That newer version isn't out yet. Please be patient; b12 will be
> out when it is ready.
I IMed this to another developer (I won't say who, although he may
reveal himself if he wishes), asking “Think this is too harsh?”. This
was followed by:
<Other_Developer> seems reasonable to me
<Me> I'm just worrying that it's a little scoldful for just a user.
<Me> Not like he directly accused us of trying to infect his system.
<Me> *drafts new version*
<Other_Developer> it's borderline, but on the ok side of the border imo
(Note: I'm not intending to show this other developer in a bad light;
that isn't what this thread is about, and that's why I'm not
revealing his name. My point is that I did ask another dev about this
version of the message, and I did receive a response of OK. I do
disagree with his opinion, hence me rewriting the message. But
everybody is wrong some of the time; we can't all be perfect. And
this is certainly subjective anyway; there's no concrete definition
of “wrong” here.)
Here's the answer that I sent instead:
> On Aug 29, 2006, at 22:18:42, David Strumsky wrote:
>> Could not file bug report - page said problem is "fixed" but I
>> still have problem. (Usually you guys say "problem exists until
>> update" but now I find no note of this.)
>
> We only say that when somebody reopens a ticket that we closed as
> fixed because their problem didn't go away without them updating.
>
> The ticket (#5405) was filed against b11. You're using b11;
> therefore you have the problem. The statement that the problem will
> continue to exist until the update is implicit; if the current
> version has a problem, and we've fixed the problem, then it seems
> logical to me that only versions *after* the current version will
> have the fix.
>
> The alternative is for us to directly transmit a fix to b11 to
> every user's system without their knowledge (otherwise you would
> not have needed to ask in an email). This would be thoroughly evil:
> (1), it would require that every copy of Adium “phone home” to an
> Adium server (so that we'd know where to send the patch) when it is
> launched, which is a considerable violation of privacy if we did it
> without clearly asking the user for permission, and (2), we would
> be sending executable application code to users' machines without
> their knowledge and consent, which would be not only evil but also
> a HUGE security hole.
>
> We prefer what we do now: Adium will politely inform you that there
> is a newer version available, and offer you the choice of
> downloading that newer version now or later or ignoring it
> altogether and waiting until the version after.
>
> That newer version will be b12, and it will include this fix among
> many others. It is not yet ready; when it is, we will release it
> then, and then you and every other user of Mac OS X 10.3.9 and
> Adium will have the fix.
Here's what Mr. Strumsky sent back (in full, except quoting):
> Hahaha... Peter Hosey, sorry you had to go to such lengths in your
> reply to state the obvious.
>
> I didn't know if Adium considered it a *persistent* problem, that it
> might be something happening to a large number of users -- and
> therefore worthy of immediate attention. I couldn't tell if it was
> just
> only two or three of us reporting the bug and Adium needed a bigger
> sampling of responses.
>
> Therefore I wanted to be helpful and act responsibly by submitting a
> report.
>
> I supposed this because there was NO warning on the download site of a
> possible conflict (or whatever the problem was discovered to be).
>
> I figured (how naive of me, evidently) that Adium would warn
> downloaders of its beta that the program might not even start up, and
> that users would have to resort to the simple pre-version 1.0 version.
>
> I also knew that only the faulty version was offered. The old beta was
> not offered, that I could see.
>
> Of course I knew Adium wouldn't transmit a fix. Pretty imaginative
> thinking, on your part.
>
> -David
> (paying supporter/subscriber for 3 years, if it matters)
> PS - Don't feel so alone and embattled. You're not the only smart guy
> on the block.
And here's what Evan answered him with:
> David,
>
>> <sarcasm towards Peter>
> Peter spent a good deal of time writing you back and trying to
> help . Perhaps you thought it was overkill; nodding and going
> about business would be a much more polite way handling your
> response than what you wrote. Even better, a simple "OK, thanks"
> would suffice, and would have saved you time, as
> well. f ourb
(Note: That extra text at the end of the paragraph really was in the
message Evan sent. Don't blame me. :)
>> I supposed this because there was NO warning on the download site
>> of a
>> possible conflict (or whatever the problem was discovered to be).
>>
>> I figured (how naive of me, evidently) that Adium would warn
>> downloaders of its beta that the program might not even start up, and
>> that users would have to resort to the simple pre-version 1.0
>> version.
>>
>> I also knew that only the faulty version was offered. The old beta
>> was
>> not offered, that I could see.
>
> A warning on the download page is a good idea - I've made it so
> (beta.adiumx.com) . As none of us are still on 10.3, we are
> not constantly reminded of the problem. Of 21,000 downloads of
> 1.0b11, we've had about 10 reports of the 10.3 crash; we're waiting
> to fix other issues before pushing another beta.
>
>> Of course I knew Adium wouldn't transmit a fix. Pretty imaginative
>> thinking, on your part.
>
> No imagination was necessary. We get at least one user a week
> contacting us and thinking that because a ticket is marked fixed
> his local copy of Adium should contain the fix. Never
> underestimate the power of ignorance.
My question now is, would I have gotten the same defense from Evan if
I'd sent the original version of my answer? Maybe I would have; maybe
not. But I think it was much easier for him to do so, given the more-
polite reply that I did send.
However good your angry rebuke might feel, kindness pays off (even if
not immediately). Something to remember.
________________________________
\ Peter Hosey / prh at boredzo.org
PGP public key ID: 7AB26BAD (since 2006-01-01)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/attachments/20060917/01d903c2/attachment.sig>
More information about the devel
mailing list