D Language Foundation Weekly Planning Session Update

[ag0aep6g]

On 17.05.23 16:56, Mike Parker wrote:
> I thought Dennis had gotten to the same place by the 
> end. I see now he hasn't, but he's still willing to give it a go.

Dennis has been part of the 14-week group, right? He's been exposed to 
the same amount of IVY in the same manner as you. Still, in your 
opinion, he didn't "get it" (yet). How many people participated, and how 
many "got it"? What's IVY's "success" rate?

My impression of Dennis is that he's competent and communicates well. I 
don't remember his ego getting in the way of things. I can't speak that 
well of some bigger names in D land. (Yeah, I'm being petty and holding 
a grudge.)

Of the people that I know participated (you, Dennis, Ali, and I'm 
assuming Walter, Atila, Andrei(?)), I trust Dennis's judgment the most. 
Him not being particularly excited by IVY suggests to me that it might 
not be the greatest thing since chocolate was invented. On the other 
hand, he doesn't seem particularly alarmed by it either. Which is a good 
thing.

Of course, it's easy for me to praise Dennis now. I already know his 
opinion of IVY aligns more with my (uninformed) one. But I like to think 
that I would have put him on top of that list anyway.

> IVY is more than just vision statements. It's a mindset, a shift in 
> perspective. Some people will "get it", some won't. And that's fine.
[...]
> The more contributors who get it, the better, as it will make it easier 
> for us to collaborate. But we can still work with people who don't get 
> it, or who don't want to. So it's not going to bar anyone from 
> contributing if they want nothing to do with it.

The way you talk about it still rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm too 
eagerly trying to find something wrong, but it just reminds me so much 
of empty con man talk, and your refusal to engage here is so much not 
helping.

> What it comes down to at its core is communication. That's the heart of it.

Yet you refuse to communicate in the established channel. You insist on 
communicating in a way that better suits you, a way that is less 
transparent.

I guess it comes down to this: You're not going to communicate publicly 
(because you're afraid of giving the wrong impression to 3rd parties), 
and I'm not going to communicate privately (because I like to be a pain 
in your behind). So we're at an impasse. We both refuse to move and 
that's it.

> I promise, everyone will learn more about IVY as we go along. I just 
> want to speak to some regular contributors about it first so we can get 
> down to business with it sooner rather than later, and so I can see if 
> my approach to explaining it works. If they get it, then they can help 
> me help others get it. And as I write about the work we're doing in the 
> coming weeks, I'll be throwing in some details about how we're employing 
> IVY so that people can get an idea of what it looks like in action.

Maybe in a couple of weeks it will all make perfect sense. Until then I 
will put IVY away as irrelevant to me. The only actual information I've 
got is from Dennis, and from that it doesn't seem like something I'd be 
down for.

> I'm going to hang out in BeerConf a bit this month. While I'm there, I'm 
> happy to answer any questions about IVY and how we're employing it. It's 
> much easier to communicate what it is in a real-time context than in the 
> forums. And my offer still stands to chat about it with anyone who's 
> interested.

I strongly dislike that you refuse to do that here.

I don't care for DConf or BeerConf. I haven't participated and I'm not 
going to. I don't think I've even watched one whole DConf talk ever.

If you guys want to be social, be social. I'm not trying to take that 
away from you. But if you make those social events mandatory, you're 
pushing me further away. If the only way to get information about a new 
big development in D land is to chat with you, or to participate in the 
Confs, then I'm not going to get it.