ReactOS Forum

Z98 wrote:When one makes changes to ReactOS, how can it be considered anything but "direct" coding since they are "directly" making modifications to their copy of the source code? After all, there's no such thing as "indirectly" coding since you are either coding or you are not. If you're coding, you're directly coding and if you're not, you're not coding at all and thus "direct" doesn't come into play. How the code ends up in the repository is irrelevant since any code written was coded "directly" against the ReactOS code base.

The information on the jobs page is of no relevance to people that are asking how to get patches into the project. Unless someone is asking specifically about applying for a development position with the Foundation, the information on that page is useless for them. The procedure that people go through in order to get patches accepted are not detailed on that page, nor does the information on the jobs page provide any hints or guidelines as to what the project wants in a patch. Since there is no relevant information about the procedure, bringing up information from that page doesn't provide the person asking questions any useful information and in fact can confuse them if they end up inferring that the requirements on the jobs page have any association with patch submission and acceptance. Furthermore, the metrics used to judge whether someone should get commit access or not is also not touched upon on the jobs page and are in fact different than the metrics used to determine whether someone should be offered a development contract. Therefore, there is no point in bringing up the jobs page or its content at all when discussing how to contribute code to the project. That you need to add so many qualifiers when bringing the information up is a pretty clear indication of the irrelevance of the information to the topic being discussed. What I, Victor, and Amine have asked of you is that you stop bringing up that information when it doesn't help answer a person's questions.

Because what they do with their code, therefor does not find it's way into the trunk or release builds. 'Direct coding' involves commit access. Otherwise, if there wouldn't be a difference between the two, one wouldn't need first prove one is capable enough (aka, it's conditional) BEFORE getting commit access. There is no such requirement for filing a patch through JIRA.

Alas, you start from the premise the question was how to file patches. The job page is of no relevance to that particular topic, no. That was exactly my rebuttal to those who claimed that it could be misconstrued as such; it can't, if one's reading comprehension is adequate. The first poster, for instance, said he was a software engineer student who asked if and how he could help ROS. Help ROS, not 'how to get patches into the project'. The two are not similar, even you'll have to acknowledge that. One way to help ROS, is by direct coding, including, but not limited to, what is described on the jobpage.

Webunny wrote: ... need first prove one is capable enough (aka, it's conditional) BEFORE getting commit access ...

You don't have to meet the criteria put forth on the jobs page to get svn commit permissions. You just have to work with the dev's and submit patches till they think giving you an account on the svn server would be worth it.
You ONLY need to qualify per the job page for a JOB (hence it being called the "Job" page) where you get paid to work on ReactOS.

This and similar topics should not take over any (and/or every) thread in which someone brushes near the subject(s).
If you wish to keep conversing on topics which are not Directly associated with the "Subject" put forth when the thread is created, PLEASE do so in a thread dedicated to the specific topic.
(It makes it hard to want to check the forums when so many threads end up having a bunch of stuff in them that aren't really related to the reason the thread was started.)

justincase wrote:

Webunny wrote: ... need first prove one is capable enough (aka, it's conditional) BEFORE getting commit access ...

You don't have to meet the criteria put forth on the jobs page to get svn commit permissions. You just have to work with the dev's and submit patches till they think giving you an account on the svn server would be worth it.
You ONLY need to qualify per the job page for a JOB (hence it being called the "Job" page) where you get paid to work on ReactOS.

This and similar topics should not take over any (and/or every) thread in which someone brushes near the subject(s).
If you wish to keep conversing on topics which are not Directly associated with the "Subject" put forth when the thread is created, PLEASE do so in a thread dedicated to the specific topic.
(It makes it hard to want to check the forums when so many threads end up having a bunch of stuff in them that aren't really related to the reason the thread was started.)

You still need to fullfil criteria and some conditions, though. As said numerous times now, 'helping ROS' can be done on several levels. The way with the most stringent conditions, are those on the jobpage, a bit less stringent, are those for just commit access (you still need to prove you're capable, though, before getting it). There are no conditions, however, for filing a patch with JIRA. When speaking of having to pass conditions for certain forms of help, thus, it should have been clear I wasn't talking about filing patches with JIRA. This too, I have said numerous times now: it's like I'm saying this to deaf ears.

As for your complaint that this topic continues, see my response to you here: http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 15#p108354 .

Webunny wrote:Alas, you start from the premise the question was how to file patches. The job page is of no relevance to that particular topic, no. That was exactly my rebuttal to those who claimed that it could be misconstrued as such; it can't, if one's reading comprehension is adequate. The first poster, for instance, said he was a software engineer student who asked if and how he could help ROS. Help ROS, not 'how to get patches into the project'. The two are not similar, even you'll have to acknowledge that. One way to help ROS, is by direct coding, including, but not limited to, what is described on the jobpage.

If it is of no relevance to the topic, then why bring it up at all?

When you pull quotes in isolation from the jobs page, it sure as hell can be misconstrued. Linking to it at all can cause confusion because the mere act of bringing it up implies some relevance because if it wasn't relevant, it wouldn't be brought up at all. And you keep assuming that people follow your train of thought and interpret information the same way as you. We don't, and the disagreements that have erupted so far should have made that point quite clearly.

The contents of the jobs page are highly inappropriate as a response when someone, regardless of their credentials and work experience, is asking how to contribute to the project, regardless of what form their contribution may take, since nothing on that page talks about how a newcomer can contribute, offers no instructions on where to get said information, and presents a set of expectations that are completely inappropriate for what a newcomer has to meet to be able to contribute. So stop bringing up that page.

Z98 wrote:

Webunny wrote:Alas, you start from the premise the question was how to file patches. The job page is of no relevance to that particular topic, no. That was exactly my rebuttal to those who claimed that it could be misconstrued as such; it can't, if one's reading comprehension is adequate. The first poster, for instance, said he was a software engineer student who asked if and how he could help ROS. Help ROS, not 'how to get patches into the project'. The two are not similar, even you'll have to acknowledge that. One way to help ROS, is by direct coding, including, but not limited to, what is described on the jobpage.

If it is of no relevance to the topic, then why bring it up at all?

When you pull quotes in isolation from the jobs page, it sure as hell can be misconstrued. Linking to it at all can cause confusion because the mere act of bringing it up implies some relevance because if it wasn't relevant, it wouldn't be brought up at all. And you keep assuming that people follow your train of thought and interpret information the same way as you. We don't, and the disagreements that have erupted so far should have made that point quite clearly.

The contents of the jobs page are highly inappropriate as a response when someone, regardless of their credentials and work experience, is asking how to contribute to the project, regardless of what form their contribution may take, since nothing on that page talks about how a newcomer can contribute, offers no instructions on where to get said information, and presents a set of expectations that are completely inappropriate for what a newcomer has to meet to be able to contribute. So stop bringing up that page.

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. Or do you deny that? The endless *continuation* of the meta-discussion that dealt with me saying that afterwards, THAT may be considered inappropriate, granted. But, as said, it doesn't seem to stop other people for continuing the debate, as you do now, so one can only conclude it's not deemed that much of a bother in this thread, otherwise people would, as they themselves suggest, post their comments on this on another thread specifically dedicated to meta-debating this. Btw, I never "pulled quotes in isolation from the jobs page" as you erroneously claim; I linked to it in its entirety. So there goes another argument. Please stay with the facts, when providing arguments. Or are you now suggesting that the page is so unclear, that a person with normal reading ability can't understand what it's about? Than it should be rewritten asap, don't you think!?

You forgot to add at the end: unless he wants to help in direct coding. Which was the whole point. I don't understand your fear. Are you now saying you think a person with high IT credentials and normal intelligence, could not understand what is written there on that page, or does not understand he can still help in other ways?

I don't think we should regard people, even newcomers, as THAT stupid, certainly not people who understand coding.


Saying the contents of that page, even for a software engineer or people who can actually code in C or C++ is inappropriate as a way to help ROS, is really weird. What if he agreed to try it, then? Would it still be inappropriate to help in that way? That argument doesn't make any sense.

It's as weird as saying that I couldn't say to people that a way to help ROS is by donating to it, because the guy in question maybe is dirt poor and it would be inappropriate to suggest such a potential way of helping ROS.

The fact is; direct coding IS a way to help ROS: right or wrong? Let's not get into beating around the bush: yes or no? Then there is nothing wrong by pointing out this possibility is there as well. That's all there is to it, really. There is no logic behind your argument that, because one points out one way to help, it excludes all other ways of helping, like you seem to irrationally fear so much. As said before: then you could as well argument they might not understand that they can still donate to help as well. Yet, I never see you make that assumption or claim. That's because it doesn't make sense, and you know it.

Guys. PMs. Use them. It's annoying.

Black_Fox wrote:Guys. PMs. Use them. It's annoying.

I'm quite willing to do so, in principle. In fact, I already deleted all of these comments in one of my posts, to stop the continuation - which, let's be honest here, don't seem all that fruitful in understanding eachother viewpoints on the matter - of this meta-debate, but to no avail. I, myself, am open for continuing it here, in pm, or on another thread; I have no problems with any of these possibilities. However, as long as people continue to comment and ask me questions here on it, they are de facto continuing it in this thread too, and then I answer them. There is no logic in asking a question about it in this thread, otherwise. Otherwise, one would than pm me - as you said, or link to another thread made to continue this debate.

As said, there is no logic in people complaining about it continuing, while they are continuing it themselves.

Black_Fox wrote:Guys. PMs. Use them. It's annoying.

I'm quite willing to do so, in principle. ... I, myself, am open for continuing it ... on another thread ... made to continue this debate.

Then make a thread specifically for it!

justincase wrote:

Black_Fox wrote:Guys. PMs. Use them. It's annoying.

I'm quite willing to do so, in principle. ... I, myself, am open for continuing it ... on another thread ... made to continue this debate.

Then make a thread specifically for it!

Why don't you?

Let's face it here: I wasn't the one starting to complain about it. You were. Logic indicates, thus, if you are the one suggesting that another thread should be made, you make that thread, and NOT continue the topic here, if you don't want to continue that topic here. (or, alternatively, just stop continuing it, if you have such problems with continuing it.)

As I explicitly said - and you ignored in your quotes - for me it's the same: here, in another thread, or in pm. I just respond to the comments and questions asked, wherever they are asked. As of yet, that seems to be here, even though those that are asking say they don't want to continue it here - while continuing it here.

Webunny: I have pm'd you.
Please take into consideration the points I have made in that pm.
From this point forward I am not even going to read anything in a post which mentions the offending topics.
EDIT: Actually in retrospect that position may be a little harsh. I'll tone it down to simply "I reserve the right to completely ignore any portion of any post if I deem it not constructive and/or likely to cause the discussion to degenerate." cause a small, short mention of almost anything can be OK it's done right, and in the right situation.

Ian (imk): seeing as the majority of this thread has become off topic stuff which is entirely irrelevant to the original purpose of the thread, you may want to consider starting a new one for further discussion of your P6T Deluxe Driver install, and related issues.

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.

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.

Alright, if you want me to directly quote you.

Webunny wrote: That said, now that you said you are a student of software engineering - which they couldn't know in front, I presume - and you want to help with ROS coding, things change a bit. If that is the context in which you want to get it, I guess one could say it's sort of a minimum test. I mean, if you can't figure out how to search for the GetVersion with the link hbelusca has given you (there is a search box on there), I'm sorry to say that your skills (as a software engineering student) are subpar, and I doubt the ROS devs would let you anywhere near the code. In fact, they still might not. They're pretty...well, elitist is maybe a wrong word, but certainly 'stringent' about the capabilities of a coder, just take a look here: https://reactos.org/node/785 .

You make an assertion that someone, who has never provided a patch and therefore is a "newcomer" as far as contributions go is not of sufficient standard to contribute code to ReactOS. You use the text on the jobs page as a demonstration of your interpretation of that standard, where the text makes quite clear that the project is only interested in people already experienced in development. You are therefore indirectly asserting that the only people the project would accept contributions from are experienced developers because, and I quote, you "doubt the ROS devs would let you anywhere near the code" because we are "'stringent' about the capabilities of a coder, just take a look here: https://reactos.org/node/785. No qualifiers from you, no setting of expectations, just a link to a page where the project intentionally set a very high bar for applicants and you use that as the basis of what you think the project expects for potential contributors, since the person you were responding to never expressed any interest in a development contract and was merely talking about providing patches. After all, that page may be about getting a job with the project, but the "stringent" standard that you are inferring is based on your interpretation of the text on that page. Therefore, how much more relaxed could that standard be if you're making a point of emphasizing it by bringing it up? The fact that that page is about job applicants is completely overshadowed by your decision to emphasize the "stringent" standards you see. A reader might intellectually be aware that the page talks about people looking for a job, not about how people make general contributions, but since you've made it a point to draw attention to the "stringent" standard, you've basically guaranteed that their focus will be on the "stringent" standards and at best they'd only be peripherally aware of the possibility that general contribution follows a different set of rules. This was a potentially problematic inference that you made that I pretty much picked out the moment I read your post.

Then there's the whole "stringent" standards thing to begin with. What bloody stringent standards? If someone wants to contribute code, how they end up with a patch that they submit is irrelevant. The only standard is whether it compiles and has the intended effect. If the patch is sloppy or has problems, it gets sent back to the submitter with advice on how to rework it. If that is somehow "stringent" then you and I have very different understandings of what that word means. And if our definitions of stringent do match, then you've demonstrated perfectly the reason why I, Victor, and Amine pounced on your posts. If the aforementioned procedure for code contribution does not sound stringent, then you suffered from a misunderstanding of how the project works, a misunderstanding that is pretty obviously fueled by your interpretations of the text on the jobs page since you yourself used that text as evidence to back your claim that the project has "stringent" standards. Considering the grief that you alone have been giving us, why are you at all surprised we're so prepared to step down, hard, on you to stop that misunderstanding spreading?

Z98 wrote:Alright, if you want me to directly quote you.

Webunny wrote: That said, now that you said you are a student of software engineering - which they couldn't know in front, I presume - and you want to help with ROS coding, things change a bit. If that is the context in which you want to get it, I guess one could say it's sort of a minimum test. I mean, if you can't figure out how to search for the GetVersion with the link hbelusca has given you (there is a search box on there), I'm sorry to say that your skills (as a software engineering student) are subpar, and I doubt the ROS devs would let you anywhere near the code. In fact, they still might not. They're pretty...well, elitist is maybe a wrong word, but certainly 'stringent' about the capabilities of a coder, just take a look here: https://reactos.org/node/785 .

You make an assertion that someone, who has never provided a patch and therefore is a "newcomer" as far as contributions go is not of sufficient standard to contribute code to ReactOS. You use the text on the jobs page as a demonstration of your interpretation of that standard, where the text makes quite clear that the project is only interested in people already experienced in development. You are therefore indirectly asserting that the only people the project would accept contributions from are experienced developers because, and I quote, you "doubt the ROS devs would let you anywhere near the code" because we are "'stringent' about the capabilities of a coder, just take a look here: https://reactos.org/node/785. No qualifiers from you, no setting of expectations, just a link to a page where the project intentionally set a very high bar for applicants and you use that as the basis of what you think the project expects for potential contributors, since the person you were responding to never expressed any interest in a development contract and was merely talking about providing patches. After all, that page may be about getting a job with the project, but the "stringent" standard that you are inferring is based on your interpretation of the text on that page. Therefore, how much more relaxed could that standard be if you're making a point of emphasizing it by bringing it up? The fact that that page is about job applicants is completely overshadowed by your decision to emphasize the "stringent" standards you see. A reader might intellectually be aware that the page talks about people looking for a job, not about how people make general contributions, but since you've made it a point to draw attention to the "stringent" standard, you've basically guaranteed that their focus will be on the "stringent" standards and at best they'd only be peripherally aware of the possibility that general contribution follows a different set of rules. This was a potentially problematic inference that you made that I pretty much picked out the moment I read your post.

Then there's the whole "stringent" standards thing to begin with. What bloody stringent standards? If someone wants to contribute code, how they end up with a patch that they submit is irrelevant. The only standard is whether it compiles and has the intended effect. If the patch is sloppy or has problems, it gets sent back to the submitter with advice on how to rework it. If that is somehow "stringent" then you and I have very different understandings of what that word means. And if our definitions of stringent do match, then you've demonstrated perfectly the reason why I, Victor, and Amine pounced on your posts. If the aforementioned procedure for code contribution does not sound stringent, then you suffered from a misunderstanding of how the project works, a misunderstanding that is pretty obviously fueled by your interpretations of the text on the jobs page since you yourself used that text as evidence to back your claim that the project has "stringent" standards. Considering the grief that you alone have been giving us, why are you at all surprised we're so prepared to step down, hard, on you to stop that misunderstanding spreading?

The first part of the quote you place there, has nothing to do with the topic at hand, rather was referring to the fact that no-one was saying where he should look, and that this could be seen as a test.

As for the rest: you interpreted 'ROS coding' as including filing patches to JIRA, I didn't. Granted, that on itself could be misinterpreted, but since I linked to the jobpage - where it is described what I I was talking about (including the conditions I talked about!), there is no way one could come to the conclusion it was about filing patches to JIRA. Not to a 'newcomer' who knows coding and has normal reading comprehension, and CERTAINLY not to a ROS coder like Amine. I repeat: if you think the jobpage is not self-explanatory and could even be misconstrued as being about filing patches with JIRA, it urgently needs a rewrite.

As for your insistence that 'ROS coding' or 'direct coding' or 'commit access' is not clear enough (even when linking to that jobpage, and even when saying it's not about filing JIRA patches, etc.), then let me ask: how would you describe it, then? I'm asking you for the exact definition or term that you would use, when describing what I want to describe (and I think you know what I mean, even if you say I'm not clear on it). I'm talking about the level of direct coding, with commit access, where you first need to prove yourself (aka, need to fulfil some prior conditions BEFORE being granted that right). Obviously, that can't be 'filing patches with JIRA'. So what is the correct nomenclature, according to you?


As for your complaint about the use of 'stringent': I made a post directly under the one you're quoting from, where I give the exact, dictionary definition of the word 'stringent'. I don't know what you understand under it, but I think you make it far more pejorative than it is. We might have 'different understandings' what that word means, but it's not about what you or I think it means, it's what it actually means, and the closest way to determine that, is accept the definition given by the dictionary, NOT by each person using his own interpretation of what a word means. Otherwise, you'll end up in a tower of Babel, I think we can agree on that. There is a standard: let's use that standard. In effect, the word 'elitist' would have been correct also, as pertaining to what is described on the jobpage, because 'elitist' is derived from 'elite', and that, contrary to popular misconception, is just indicative of a select group of people, being the top of their domain. Nothing more, nothing less. I refrained from actually using it, because I know some not familiar with the actual meaning of the word - and also, because the 4th definition of 'elitist' itself deals with 'superiority' - would fall over the term, even though at the end of that jobpage, it gives an almost exact definition of what is meant by an elite. So you see, I am actually pretty careful about using that kind of terminology, but apparently to no avail: even when I change from 'elitist' to 'stringent', you still manage to fall over it.

Webunny wrote: there is no way one could come to the conclusion it was about filing patches to JIRA.

We've been trying to get through to you that you cannot assume this. You have continued insisting that no one could misinterpret you. Most of your arguments have centered around bringing in lots of additional context that were not present in your original post. Most of our arguments have centered around what is immediately present in your post and what a person might conclude without that additional context because they will reach at least a preliminary conclusion without looking for more details. That preliminary conclusion can and will color any further conclusions they make even when they are introduced to additional information. If Amine and Victor had not jumped on that post, would you have ever clarified yourself? Since you seem incapable of acknowledging that this might be a problem, we have little confidence in your ability to not cause future misunderstandings since you have made it clear that you will continue posting information based on the same set of assumptions that produced the first problematic post.

If you want more details on what we took issue with in this topic, sure.

Webunny wrote: 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.

No they are not. And this is a blanket statement I would make about any newcomer. Having a background in software engineering or C/C++ programming says nothing about a person's suitability for working on the project. Amongst all of the developers that have participated in ReactOS, we have had people start with the project without any programming experience. We have also had people who had programming experience but whose first significant experience with C/C++ was this project. Background says very little about whether they are "good" potential candidates. The only thing a person's background experience does is tell the project how much or how little bootstrapping they might need before they are productive, not how well they would do once they actually start contributing. After that, an individual's own competence and dedication plays a far greater role in determining whether they are candidates for commit access or development contracts. Since my conclusion on this point is the complete opposite of yours, none of the additional arguments you have made about bringing up the jobs page in this topic work, since they're all underpinned by that original point. So however logical you may think your position is, if the first assumption is undercut, then the rest of the arguments that relied upon it no longer work.