C Job Security

Posted Sep 4, 2024 14:40 UTC (Wed) by pizza (subscriber, #46)
In reply to: C Job Security by epilys
Parent article: Whither the Apple AGX graphics driver?

> This sounds extremely like protecting your territory (and most probably job security too) by making yourself irreplaceable.

That is a very uncharitable interpretation; passively-aggressively accusing the maintainer of working in bad faith is not going to lead to a positive outcome.

>Maintainers should be as objective as humanly possible,

Yet anything less than this platonic spherical cow ideal of perfection (which always seems to be translate to "does what *I* want them to do") is grounds for accusations of malfesance.

> we have people who if they were replaced by other also knowledgeable and capable individuals, everyone's experiences would be positive over all

That's quite a logical leap you're making, based on very-not-supported-by-evidence assumptions.

C Job Security

Posted Sep 4, 2024 15:36 UTC (Wed) by epilys (subscriber, #153643) [Link]

I don't disagree with you, this is only the shallow optics of this exchange from someone who doesn't know the parties involved in a meaningful level. A direct NAK instead of a discussion might as well be in bad faith, in first look, after all...

> Yet anything less than this platonic spherical cow ideal of perfection (which always seems to be translate to "does what *I* want them to do") is grounds for accusations of malfesance.

Humanly possible is not an ideal of perfection, you misinterpreted the sentence. Your response reads to me as "uncharitable interpretation; passively-aggressively accusing [the poster] of [commenting] in bad faith" too. **I** do not want them to do something specific; perhaps I should have written "should strive to be as much objective as possible". Besides, I only said "as humanly possible" which is not another way of saying "ideal".

But in any case, I get what you're trying to say. But this is in response to subtext that just wasn't there, that is all.

> That's quite a logical leap you're making, based on very-not-supported-by-evidence assumptions.

Well, I'm talking about this case in particular -and the occasion it was brought up again (A maintainer resigning) - where we have the evidence right here: a general air of malaise because people do not like any sort of change.