Z98 wrote:If you want an example of your words easily being taken out of context, go back to that first post in the GetVersion thread that caused Amine to blow up at you. Your inability to see how it can be taken out of context doesn't mean it cannot be taken out of context. You are not posting things for yourself to read, you are posting things for others to read and we interpret your words based on our way of thinking, not yours.
No, his background does not indicate that he is suitable for a development contract. Having a software development background indicates only that someone knows how to code and has been paid for it in the past, not that they are suitable for being paid to work on ReactOS. Software development is not a uniform field, people have expertise that are wholly unsuitable for working on ReactOS but are prized for other types of software, so having experience in software development says very little about how suitable they would be at ReactOS. Nor should any newcomer be shown the possibility of such contracts since they are ineligible, regardless of their background, until such time as they have established credibility with the project via a series of accepted patches. That page says nothing about how to provide code to the project, therefore it is absolutely irrelevant to anyone who is asking questions about it. It is only relevant for people who have already established their credentials with the project and are looking for a way to contribute to the project on a full time basis.
What you term "direct coding" also has absolutely no relevance to the information on that page, since knowing the information on that page does nothing to help one do "direct coding." It says nothing about how to provide patches and nothing about the standards the patches will be held against. The only people who could possibly use the information on that page are those that have already contributed to the project and are already "directly coding" so if you see a question that is related to "directly coding" then by default they are not "directly coding" and have no use for the information on the jobs page. Note that we have asked you to stop bringing up the jobs page multiple times. You obviously know the situations where we think it is inappropriate otherwise you wouldn't be arguing so hard on why you think you should be allowed to continue. You can choose to disregard our request and continue the way you have, but if you do so we will start intervening more directly instead of just calling out what we view as offtopic or irrelevant information.
Note: at this point I'm exercising my moderator privileges to pound this point through even if it is offtopic to the original post.
I DO wish you would actually use my exact words, instead of something I didn't say. You very, very often do that.
For instance; I didn't say "his background does [not] indicate that he is suitable for a development contract." I said: "It's of relevance in as much as one wants to point out ways in which he could help ROS; seen his background, this could likely include direct coding, at least potentially."
Note the 'could' and 'potentially'. Whether he IS, in fact, suitable, would exactly be determined by (passing) the stringent conditions.
So, do not try to imply I said something else, but rather answer the ACTUAL question: Do you deny that, with his background, he could potentially be a good candidate for direct coding?
The whole line of argumentation you use is based on speculation, not logic. You skip the things I actually ask.
1)Are softawre engineers and people capable of coding in C and C++ good potential candidates for the jobpage or or other direct coding with commit access?
Yes, they are.
2)Is helping with direct code a way of helping ROS?
Yes, it is.
3)Is it warranted, then, that people with that background are pointed to this as also a way of helping ROS?
Yes, it is. (you basically claim it isn't, but don't provide any logical substantiation for it, rather speculate they won't comprehend what is written on the jobpage, lack the discerning quality of realising that there are more than one way of helping out (though this has been pointed out from the start too), etc.) Instead of, for instance, asking and verifying with those people themselves to see how they interpreted it, you continue with your own idea about it, regardless.
4)Is direct coding / commit access the same as filing a patch with JIRA? Does it entail the same conditions?
No it isn't. you actually say the same here, only you keep bringing it up as if it IS relevant and the same. But: NO-ONE was talking about not being able to file a patch with JIRA. I didn't say that and wasn't talking about that, the parent posters weren't talking or asking about that, in the whole conversation never was there anything implied like that: patches with JIRA simply were not mentioned; the only ones suddenly acting as if there was a link between the two while at the same time saying there wasn't, were you guys. However, the question and topic was NOT about how to file a patch - like you tried to imply in your former post - but about ways to help ROS. I never see you acknowledge that neither, but that is a fact. The premise that the posters asked for how to file patches with JIRA is FALSE. It follows, that the argument based on that, namely that me pointing to ways of direct coding and the conditions hereof, had no relevance and was misleading in regard to those patches, is irrelevant and invalid. It's a straw man fallacy. Yes, JIRA patches had nothing to do with it. But the question wasn't about how to patch with JIRA in the first place, it was to ask for ways to help ROS, and the jobpage IS a way to help ROs, so my answer WAS relevant to THAT. I can"'t make it more clear than that.
5)Does pointing to one way of helping ROS (and in fact, I never indicated one way, with the last poster for instance, my first post was in helping him with HW testing), means that one can not help in any other way?
No, it does not. Sorry, it simply does not, z98. You know the truth of that as well as I do. If one would claim this *is* the case, then someone saying one can help by donating, would also be indicating one can't help by testing, in that case. That idea is clearly absurd. Could you then claim with a straight face people will misconstrue it and take it the only way to help is by donations? I highly doubt that. Yet you do exactly the same with the JIRA patches.
The reason I 'argue so hard', btw, has nothing to do with what I think you find appropriate or not, but has everything to do with you using a logical fallacy in your argumentation to substantiate your claim of the 'inappropriation'. For me, this matters far more than any threat, ban, warning or whatever. I also know you well enough to know you won't change your mind on this, basically because your mind is made up, not by logical considerations on this matter, but irrational fears and speculations and conjectures that make no sense when logic is applied of it. When I encounter this sort of thing, I'm always reminded of a quote I read in a book of Carl Sagan:
"Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principles that they are laboring to dethrone: but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."
But I still think that logically correct thinking and substantiating ones' claims with rational arguments far outweighs any argumentum ab auctoritate. So I can't say I'm all that impressed with your last part of your paragraph: it's the weakest 'argument' as of yet. Yes, you can 'directly intervene' or even ban me: that doesn't make for a compelling logical argument however. Or do you think it does? No, you are right; I choose my way, as you choose yours, but, of course, remember that it's always a two-way ticket.