Re: svn commit: r905878 - in /ofbiz/trunk/specialpurpose: ebay/build.xml ebaystore/ofbiz-component.xml

[hans_bakker]

Adam,

please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
of, in this mailing list.

I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
people.

Regards,
Hans


On Wed, 2010-02-03 at 22:38 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:

> David E Jones wrote:
> > Go on all you like. The simple point is that you need to tone it
> > down if you want others to be willing to contribute. This is a
> > community-driven project, and you are not the boss. If you want
> > code to be a certain way, then by all means step up and make it
> > that way. Why do you expect others to do thing the way you think
> > they should be done?
>
> Bother.  So, when someone repeatedly makes the same mistakes, even
> after being told multiple times over and over to be better, even after
> trying to be polite over and over and over again, we must still be
> soft in our language?
>
> At some point, a tree just becomes a tree, and calling it a branch is
> no longer the way to go.
>
> I *have* shown how it is possible to do what I have been talking
> about.  Countless times.  There are tools to help us; several
> different kinds.  But people don't seem to use them.  Then, people get
> defensive when I comment on the issues that they cause for others.
>
> A community project this is; that means that those participating
> should be aware of the what others are doing, and be courteous of not
> breaking what others might be working on.  It's not just about being
> soft spoken, it's about the code first and foremost.
>
> Repeatedly, I have commented on things, given examples of what to do.
>  Others on this list have agreed with me, while others have taken what
> I have said and pasted it into various developer docs.  This
> particular incident was me repeating what I have already said in the
> past, and what others have agreed with me on.  Are you saying we are
> all wrong, and that you are right?
>
> > Heck, I'm even gun-shy these days and I'm really not interested in
> > developing and contributing much because of the total lack of
> > constructive review and feedback, with this sort of vitriol and
> > nonsense in its place. I even have a couple of offers to do things
> > in the framework, but I've recommended to the client that they take
> > a different course because "doing it right" would involve way too
> > much community push back, and I'm just not that into it. I really
> > don't want to write code according to the rules of Adam Heath or
> > anyone else, especially since there is so much poorly designed and
> > organized stuff constantly going into OFBiz that these "rules" seem
> > to universally miss the point and just throw effort where it won't
> > do ANY good. But don't worry Adam, you're far from the only one and
> > I don't want to miscommunicate here and state or imply that it is
> > you fault, it is most certainly not.
>
> To be fair, it only got so heated after you spoke up.  Do not place
> the blame solely on me.
>
> I've seen the case countless times over the years, in tons of
> different projects, to only comment on the end of a situation.  But
> that is useless.  You must deal with the root of the problem.
>
> You don't want to write code to my standards, or someone else's
> standards?  That means you want to write them to your own standards.
> I'm sorry, but you are wrong.  Your standards are not what ofbiz
> is(I'm sorry, it may have been that way in the past, but not anymore).
>  The standards for ofbiz are what we *all* agree to(what that actually
> *is* varies over time of course).  To say you won't follow what anyone
> else says, and will do things your own way, is the absolute worse
> thing to do.
>
> If the community pushes back on something, maybe it's for a reason.
> Just because some individual things they are doing things correct, if
> the rest of us disagree, that doesn't mean that the rest of us are
> wrong, and you are correct.  This project is no longer solely yours.
>
> If you see things being done that you don't agree with, that's cool.
> Say so, at the time.  Keeping silent on them will *not* get them
> fixed.  If there is an issue, speak up!  If you mention an issue, and
> others here agree, then a consensus can be reached.  But just giving
> up will *not* produce better work.  People who give up are lazy, imho.
>  This is why I very seldom give up.  Even when I say I am going to
> ignore someone, and either say I will block the email, block the IM,
> block the irc, I really don't; I just use that as a wake-up call to
> whoever I am interacting with.
>
> > A few days ago I let the PMC know that I'm stepping down as the
> > chair and intend to no longer be as active in the project. There are
> > many reasons for that, but I won't say that this sort of stuff isn't
> > one of them. This kind of stuff just isn't worth it to me personally.
>
> That's said that you are stepping down.  But this still seems to me
> that you are pouting, and taking your ball home.
>
> A leader has to take the good with the bad.  If this really is 'the
> bad', and others could tell me if it is(I already know how you feel
> about this), then fine.  But, I'm thinking that this won't be the
> case.  If this turns out not to be 'the bad', then you are just making
> a mountain out of a molehill, and you've lost touch with everyone else.
>
> > I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions,
> > or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to
> > work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being
> > attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing
> > things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I
> > know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been
> > trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem
> > to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been
> > seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my
> > inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I
> > hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature
> > of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in
> > spite of what I'm about to write...
>
> I'll say it again, as I've said previously in this email, and others.
>  I've been working with everyone here for quite a while, and others
> here agree with me.  Others here may not have enough experience
> dealing with community projects, so may not be able to express
> themselves in ways others can understand.  My extensive experience has
> allowed me to hone this skill, so I say what is on my mind.  Others
> can then read it easily, and most often actually agree with what I say.
>
> Then, with such agreement, I tend to continue on the same set of
> issues that have been confirmed.  Suddenly, out of the blue, people
> start saying I shouldn't be doing such commentary.  Hogwash.  We've
> agreed, and I'm good at discovering these issues, and communicating
> the problem(s) to each person in general, without hardly ever coming
> off as an attack.  It's only the repeat offenders that I am more
> forceful with.
>
> The reason Hans does get more eyes looking at his work, is the *fact*
> that he does so much of it.
>
> > For years I've been talking up this approach of doing things in a
> > community-driven way and the great things that can happen, and have
> > happened with OFBiz, because of the approach. Over the last few
> > months I guess I've lost my faith in it. It's interesting that OFBiz
> > was born in one recession, but the project doesn't seem to be
> > weathering this one very well. I hope things improve and that the
> > community will strengthen again, because it's the ONLY that the
> > project will progress in any good way. I imagine most of us are
> > under considerably more stress than has been the case in recent
> > years, and it's a shame to see things going this way. Still, my
> > income is almost entirely based on OFBiz and I'm glad of that... it's
> > still a better place to be and better software to be working with
> > than anything else I'm aware of.
>
> Huh?  You think it isn't weathering this one well?  What are you
> smoking?  Ofbiz has gotten *bigger* in the last 1.5 years; more work
> is going into it.
>
> I see this community as perfectly strong.
>
> This particular thread/incident is nothing, in the grand scheme of
> flamewars that I have been involved with.  This issue is kindergarten
> in severity.  It's just some others seem to have quite thin skin.
>
>
> >
> > -David
> >
> > P.S. I apologize for my tone in my previous response, I should not
> > have sunk so low. I won't do so in the future.
>
> Yet after you did so, and I responded in kind, you then come after me
> as the one who started it.  Wonderful.
>
> ps: I'm sorry if this email seems a little personal.  There were so
> many inconsistent view points, that I couldn't let the email go
> without a response.
>
> pps: There are several parts to this email that are not directed at
> all to any one particular person.  They can be applied to anyone, if
> you step back a bit and look at the big picture.

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Adrian Crum]

Why do you feel you need to solve anything? Let the players sort things
out for themselves.

There will always be disagreements in the community. Within the
community we have design philosophy differences and cultural
differences. Those differences have to be discussed and resolved. There
is no need for you to "solve" that.

-Adrian

David E Jones wrote:
> I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions, or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in spite of what I'm about to write...

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

Discussions will always happen, I agree on this.
But if there are frequent frictions caused by different philosophy and vision about OFBiz, as I think is happening recently, then in my opinion we should try, all together, to address them.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this and trying to identify the patterns around the discussions, in order to try to identify a better way of addressing them.
I think I have identified the following reactions to commits containing code that is not accepted by everyone:
1) harsh discussions, personal attacks etc...
2) discussions on very specific technical details of the commits
3) definition of "policies" in the attempt of defining rules to prevent similar commits to happen again in the future

Even if everyone will (hopefully) agree that #1 is not the way to go, I think that the past experience is clearly showing that sometimes #2 and #3 are not useful as well.
#2 is good to address very specific issues, but if there are very different ideas on how the project should be managed (e.g. how stable the trunk should be; if it is more important to have new features or to have a clean product; if it is important to try to implement modularity or not etc...) then we will always have committers discussing on commits that look completely wrong to them.
Also, I don't like the way "policies" have been used: they are growing and becoming more and more complex, raising the bar for new contributions and committers and making the development effort and participation to project discussion less pleasant (we are more focused on form rather than content). I think that policies are useless if we don't share a common ground, and if we all share it, then most of them will be obvious to everyone or not even required.

Sorry for the long post... all in all what I want to say is that we should probably spend some good time finding an agreement on the general philosophy and goals (code quality, features, freedom, standardization, framework separation etc...) for the project and how to implement them.

Kind regards,

Jacopo


On Feb 4, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:

> Why do you feel you need to solve anything? Let the players sort things out for themselves.
>
> There will always be disagreements in the community. Within the community we have design philosophy differences and cultural differences. Those differences have to be discussed and resolved. There is no need for you to "solve" that.
>
> -Adrian
>
> David E Jones wrote:
>> I don't know how to solve these problems with community interactions, or by another way of looking at it I don't know what we can do to work together better. I've tried a few times to defend people being attacked, or try to point out hopefully more effective ways of doing things. Every time I just get personally attacked in response. I know that doing this is not the role of the PMC Chair, but I've been trying anyway and obviously completely failing and my efforts seem to be doing more harm than good, or that is the feedback I've been seeing. It's great that OFBiz has become what it has in spite of my inability to foster growth and collaboration in the community, and I hope that it will continue to grow and do so because of the nature of the project and community. I really have hope that it will, in spite of what I'm about to write...

[Adam Heath-2]

Hans Bakker wrote:
> Adam,
>
> please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
> of, in this mailing list.

I never said that.  I said my experience with Debian in the past has
made me able to work better in community projects.  And that if people
think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse.

> I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
> not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
> people.

My behaviour?  Really?  What about David's?  Just because David
started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat.  Everyone
can be wrong at times.

I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now.
Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses.  I am only
saying what we as a group have agreed with.  It's just that people who
have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't
follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I
take exception with.

New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with.

Listen, everyone.  Very closely.  It's not hard to comprehend.  I like
things consistent.  I then mention the reasons why I like things
consistent.  Others on this list have agreed.  And, it just makes
sense.  Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not
breaking functionality or builds.  So, I then go and point out issues
with consistency when they occur.  Others don't point theses issues
out, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful.  It doesn't
matter who you are, or how much you have done.  This is part of my
blindness thing;  Leaders of the project or various lueitenants

Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved
suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't
realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been
discussed with others, and said others have agreed.  That I will not
accept.

If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where
a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn
child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame
the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch?  Or, are you
going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left
the scene side-swiped the car?

Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the
end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause.
This again, is wrong, period.  And yet *I* get blamed for calling
someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid.

[Adam Heath-2]

David E Jones wrote:
> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>
> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.

They need to be, because your original reason for starting this(before
this 'Community Interactions' thread) was flawed.  You can't ignore
that.  You don't seem to be reading my responses at all, or are not
capable of understanding what I am saying.

This whole discussion is *not* the beginning; it is the end of a long
line of discussions that lead up to this.  I am getting tired of
repeating that.

Doesn't anyone else on this list see what I am trying to say?  Have I
not been consistent?  Please, speak up.

[David E. Jones-2]

On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:10 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> David E Jones wrote:
>> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>>
>> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
>
> They need to be, because your original reason for starting this(before
> this 'Community Interactions' thread) was flawed.  You can't ignore
> that.  You don't seem to be reading my responses at all, or are not
> capable of understanding what I am saying.
>
> This whole discussion is *not* the beginning; it is the end of a long
> line of discussions that lead up to this.  I am getting tired of
> repeating that.
>
> Doesn't anyone else on this list see what I am trying to say?  Have I
> not been consistent?  Please, speak up.

Don't worry, you've been abundantly consistent and should pride yourself on that.

-David

[Adam Heath-2]

David E Jones wrote:
> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>
> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.

Additionally, I have noticed over the years(not just in ofbiz), that
people don't want to *give* critiscm *at all*, because they are not
prepared to deal with the backlash from those who receive the
critiscm.  When said people try to give such constructive critiscm,
and then get chewn out over doing so, they take it personal.  Even
when the critiscm is completely justified.

I understand that.

I, however, am not concerned with such matters.  When I give critiscm,
and others can't take it, it does *not* phase me.  It's only when
others then respond, saying that I shouldn't have commented at all in
the first place, that I get upset.

I am also the same way when people find issues with what I have done.
 I am overjoyed to have feedback, 'cuz that means people are actually
reading my code.  If no one responds at all, it can me 1 of 2 things:
one, there were no problems, or 2: no one read it, and there might be
problems.  I tend to ere on the side of caution in these cases, and
keep assuming that no response means there are undiscovered bugs, and
this makes me uneasy.

[hans_bakker]

On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 19:04 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:

> Hans Bakker wrote:
> > Adam,
> >
> > please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
> > of, in this mailing list.
>
> I never said that.  I said my experience with Debian in the past has
> made me able to work better in community projects.  And that if people
> think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse.
>

You as a long time contributor should realize the intentions of David
and not react this way. There is also something called respect. Without
David you would not be programming in OFBiz. If you feel attacked try to
get tension down and not increase it even more. David in general did an
excellent job a that.

> > I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
> > not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
> > people.
>
> My behaviour?  Really?  What about David's?  Just because David
> started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat.  Everyone
> can be wrong at times.

No sorry Adam, you are reacting with far too much aggression. If you
think you are right and even if you are, you are hurting people too much
in the process. You will get that back in the future some day.

>
> I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now.
> Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses.  I am only
> saying what we as a group have agreed with.  It's just that people who
> have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't
> follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I
> take exception with.
>
> New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with.
>
> Listen, everyone.  Very closely.  It's not hard to comprehend.  I like
> things consistent.  I then mention the reasons why I like things
> consistent.  Others on this list have agreed.  And, it just makes
> sense.  Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not
> breaking functionality or builds.  So, I then go and point out issues
> with consistency when they occur.  Others don't point theses issues
> out, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
>
> For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful.  It doesn't
> matter who you are, or how much you have done.  This is part of my
> blindness thing;  Leaders of the project or various lueitenants
>
> Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved
> suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't
> realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been
> discussed with others, and said others have agreed.  That I will not
> accept.
>
> If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where
> a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn
> child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame
> the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch?  Or, are you
> going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left
> the scene side-swiped the car?
>
> Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the
> end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause.
> This again, is wrong, period.  And yet *I* get blamed for calling
> someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid.

--
Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates

[Tim Ruppert]

My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ...  Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Feb 4, 2010, at 6:35 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:

> On Thu, 2010-02-04 at 19:04 -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
>> Hans Bakker wrote:
>>> Adam,
>>>
>>> please do not introduce the Debian fights where you seem to be so proud
>>> of, in this mailing list.
>>
>> I never said that.  I said my experience with Debian in the past has
>> made me able to work better in community projects.  And that if people
>> think this is a flamewar, it isn't, I've experienced way worse.
>>
>
> You as a long time contributor should realize the intentions of David
> and not react this way. There is also something called respect. Without
> David you would not be programming in OFBiz. If you feel attacked try to
> get tension down and not increase it even more. David in general did an
> excellent job a that.
>
>>> I appreciate your technical involvement but your mailinglist behavior is
>>> not acceptable. You are scaring away any new contributions from new
>>> people.
>>
>> My behaviour?  Really?  What about David's?  Just because David
>> started the project, does not mean that he is right by fiat.  Everyone
>> can be wrong at times.
>
> No sorry Adam, you are reacting with far too much aggression. If you
> think you are right and even if you are, you are hurting people too much
> in the process. You will get that back in the future some day.
>
>>
>> I have been extremely nice, and not singling out anyone, until now.
>> Repeat offenders will always get more stern responses.  I am only
>> saying what we as a group have agreed with.  It's just that people who
>> have been involved with the project for an extended period that can't
>> follow the guidelines that have been discussed and agreed upon that I
>> take exception with.
>>
>> New people by their nature don't know, so we have to be more polite with.
>>
>> Listen, everyone.  Very closely.  It's not hard to comprehend.  I like
>> things consistent.  I then mention the reasons why I like things
>> consistent.  Others on this list have agreed.  And, it just makes
>> sense.  Consistent includes all formatting, and it includes not
>> breaking functionality or builds.  So, I then go and point out issues
>> with consistency when they occur.  Others don't point theses issues
>> out, but that doesn't make them any less valid.
>>
>> For repeat offenders, I will always get more forceful.  It doesn't
>> matter who you are, or how much you have done.  This is part of my
>> blindness thing;  Leaders of the project or various lueitenants
>>
>> Then, for some reason, random other people who are not involved
>> suddenly think I am saying something out of the clear blue; they don't
>> realize that this is a long term sort of issue, that has been
>> discussed with others, and said others have agreed.  That I will not
>> accept.
>>
>> If you are a police officer, and you get called to an accident, where
>> a car has run into a wall, killing a woman who was with an unborn
>> child that was riding in the passenger seat, are you going to blame
>> the driver of the vehicle who survied without a scratch?  Or, are you
>> going to investigate, and discover that another driver who has left
>> the scene side-swiped the car?
>>
>> Another way to look at this, is that people are only responding to the
>> end result, without knowing(or care to investigate) the root cause.
>> This again, is wrong, period.  And yet *I* get blamed for calling
>> someone else out, when the cause is perfectly valid.
> --
> Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
>

[Adam Heath-2]

Tim Ruppert wrote:
> My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ...  Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.

Huh?  You're english leaves much to be desired.  Could you rewrite
that in a more intelligible way?  I couldn't quite parse it.

(I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but there are ways it
could be misunderstood, and it would be nice to have those cleared up)

[Jacques Le Roux-2-2]

Adam,

It's also a matter of time.

Jacques

From: "Adam Heath" <[hidden email]>

> David E Jones wrote:
>> In spite of what you wrote here I will resist the urge to reply in any detail.
>>
>> I hope others will recognize how shallow and sanctimonious these remarks are, and that at least some will understand and make an
>> effort not to treat others this way. Empathy and compassion most certainly have a place in community interaction, and IMO are one
>> of the more important parts of the "community over code" concept.
>
> Additionally, I have noticed over the years(not just in ofbiz), that
> people don't want to *give* critiscm *at all*, because they are not
> prepared to deal with the backlash from those who receive the
> critiscm.  When said people try to give such constructive critiscm,
> and then get chewn out over doing so, they take it personal.  Even
> when the critiscm is completely justified.
>
> I understand that.
>
> I, however, am not concerned with such matters.  When I give critiscm,
> and others can't take it, it does *not* phase me.  It's only when
> others then respond, saying that I shouldn't have commented at all in
> the first place, that I get upset.
>
> I am also the same way when people find issues with what I have done.
> I am overjoyed to have feedback, 'cuz that means people are actually
> reading my code.  If no one responds at all, it can me 1 of 2 things:
> one, there were no problems, or 2: no one read it, and there might be
> problems.  I tend to ere on the side of caution in these cases, and
> keep assuming that no response means there are undiscovered bugs, and
> this makes me uneasy.
>

[Tim Ruppert]

Sorry - writing on mobile devices while traveling is never a good idea - guess I need one of those messages that tries to apologies for having fingers bigger than a mobile keyboard :) - here's what I was saying without all of the duh built in:

>> My fellow committer (this time you are that fellow committer Adam) has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade than to give up on improving the quality of our shared project just because he's too busy to help to do it right ...  Building a completely new implementations or feature is one thing, but when you're enhancing functionality that already exists in the system (eg like struggling to name the new component because it's a copy of an existing component) we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration.

Just trying not to get personal again - this isn't about the person, but the lack of comm and the confusing nature of what we ended up with as a community.

Cheers,
Ruppert

On Feb 4, 2010, at 11:31 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> Tim Ruppert wrote:
>> My fellow committer has his terseness in response - but I have to admit that I'd rather have him consistently call that spade a spade not too because he's just too busy to help to do it right ...  Completely new implementations are one thing, but when you're replacing existing functionality we've got to have more dedication to earlier collaboration IMO.
>
> Huh?  You're english leaves much to be desired.  Could you rewrite
> that in a more intelligible way?  I couldn't quite parse it.
>
> (I think I get the gist of what you are saying, but there are ways it
> could be misunderstood, and it would be nice to have those cleared up)