Re: [tlug] [RFC] Proposed method for TAGGING subjects

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Shawn writes:

 > Parkinson (the coiner of the term [bikeshed]) shows how you can go
 > into the board of directors and get approval for building a multi-
 > million or even billion dollar atomic power plant, but if you want
 > to build a bike shed you will be tangled up in endless discussions.

[Cool!  A brick with proper hanging punctuation.  How Japanese!]

IIRC, it was about the color of the paint, and Parkinson did not coin
the term, he simply told the story.  It's a great book (_Parkinson's
Law_), and along with _The Peter Principle_ and _Up the Organization_
will really enhance your understanding of why organizations function
(or malfunction, as the case may be) the way they do.

 > If this is the reason why people left,

Bikeshed discussions are not why people like me and Chris left.

We left because experts were being called "elitist" for resisting the
idea that open source systems could emulate the proprietary OSes in
terms of convenience and simple administration, and retain their
stability, security, and power, without requiring users to learn about
stability and security.  Certainly without requiring users to learn
enough that they could contribute back to the community.

We left because people were "demanding" that Linux become more user-
friendly, without providing any resources to develop such features.

Sure, those attitudes were held by people who also participated in a
lot of bikeshed discussions.  But that's a red herring.  Many of those
who left were motivated by a fundamental commitment to noblesse
oblige: contributing back to the community that has given us so much
by educating responsible and capable users and administrators.  When
your creed is "Beg, buy, or build", you get very tired very quickly of
beggars who would be choosers.  Or, in Jim Tittsler's case, I'm
guessing he got tired of those of us who flamed back at what we saw as
irresponsible and leeching proposals.