Hooray wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 2:38 pm:In fact, I'd go as far as saying that Lydiot's observation a few pages earlier was very much spot-on - we do tend to look at people's feedback differently, depending on the track record, and reputation, of the person making critical comments - but I guess that is to be expected in a meritocracy.
And, as I tried to say from the beginning: That meritocracy may have it's merits (zing!), but my objection was initially, and still is, the vilification of those who then choose not to join this collaboration.
If you're group A, and you say that you're open to collaboration on your basic terms, and group B shows up and wants to collaborate, but on slightly different terms, then the problem is that you guys want different things. If B then goes off and does its own thing, can it be blamed any more than you? Critique can flow both ways on the topics of civility and feasability (of procedures etc), but to argue the way its done here is just silly in my opinion. So what if it's a hostile fork (which it isn't)? You engaged in an open project which allows for forks to take place. If you didn't want that then don't engage in such projects. You can't blame others for doing what is their right to do.
- And 'no', as long as FGMembers tries to collaborate and allow for data to flow back to the official FG, as long as they don't pretend that FGMembers is its own version of FG (core application) then it's not really a hostile fork. Because it doesn't work by itself that way, and probably never will. They've (at least Israel) stated several times by now that the goal was to serve developers of scenery, objects, aircrafts etc, not to muck around int the core code. Not really a hostile fork that functions as its own thing. At all. To me at least.
Hooray wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 2:38 pm:Regarding fgmembers in particular, Israel and Jabberwocky have -in their last postings- basically confirmed that all this applies also applies to them, maybe not knowingly - but realistically, there's really isn't much -if anything- that they'd do to escalate things much further, thus, the term "hostile" is definitely appropriate in its most literal meaning.
If they don't escalate, how is it "hostile"? If Israel makes an effort to share data back with official FG, how is that "hostile"?
Just how much reconciliation do you think you can achieve by calling the other side "hostile" repeatedly?
Hooray wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 2:38 pm:I would just advise people to take a look at what they're doing and why someone may be teaming up with them - I mean, we've all had countless debates with other contributors - and looking back at my own debates with people like Bomber or vitos, I was clearly motivated to talk to them because they had so much to offer (e.g. both of them are exceptionally talented aircraft/FDM developers) - i.e. I could see their potential.
But in this case, with fgmembers in particular, all this negativity is unprecedented - and some of the smartest, and most talented folks (contributors), are literally getting dragged into the mud by people who are playing highly manipulative psycho games, and don't even have remotely the kind of stakes, or track records, that others like Bomber or vitos actually have.
Which means that I will probably continue to talk to folks like Bomber or vitos, regardless of the history - but that I also question the motives for some people to even get involved in all this.
Well, I hope the point isn't to ignore good points being made simply because they're made by people that don't have the time or skill to contribute on a level to your liking.