[TYPO3-english] Rebranding: Get the green back

[Martin Bless]

Hi Tolleiv,

it's nice you took the time for a longer answer.

>The way you all responded to Rasmus is exactly what's keeping 
>the actually active people away from these newsgroup discussions.

We all? Please don't generalize. I don't think I've written a
single word in this thread that was unpolite or "flamelike". Most
people in this thread have given serious and respectful answers.

Please forgive me: I didn't know Rasmus. I've never met him
before. I didn't know he exists. But, as I wrote: I like the way
he writes and the way he tries to answer questions. Still we
disagree. But that's something else. I'm looking forward to the
day I can meet him.

>Why didn't you start the discussion in a polite way and asked for 
>further explanation on the "lost green" and instead brought up a your 
>own "lets revert everything" proposal.

I don't think I have done anything in an unpolite and or offending
way. Please keep the time flow in mind: Until I started this
thread there had been *no* public explanations at all why the
green had gone. Except what Robert told in the keynote. 

And I never made a "let's revert everything" proposal. So please
don't continue saying that.

>How did you expect people to react?

It's all about:
- telling that I'm upset with "all orange"
- finding out if I'm alone and what others think
- hoping to get explanations

But mostly I did expect and I'm expecting still that somebody
seriously considers to put that green back there. Could we do
that? Pros and cons? You talked of people "ranting against every
tiny change". Well, if it's a tiny change, why not take that back?

>I saw how the community reacted when the T3O stuff was brought to 
>preview last year - angry blogposts, useless blaming never asking for 
>reasons - all of that, but no additional contribution. And even the ones 
>that seemed to be constructive didn't get up and do things. The same 
>happens over and over again.

That's why I would like to break that. One reason for that is a
structural on: If we don't provide a suitable place for those
discussions they will happen somewhere else with 100% likelyhood.

If we do something about it we have a chance to reduce the number
of misunderstandings and flamewars.

>Sure, more and more communication is good - 
>but look at the way you (community) communicate back.

Please don't do that general blaming.

>The TYPO3 association was always asked to communicate more, especially 
>regarding the budgets - right at the moment the budget applications [1] 
>have got ~310 responses. Assuming that the authors responds are counted 
>in, these 49 budget proposals together just got as much attention as 
>this single flame.

Please try to understand that it's not a flame but a valid
request.

>I am being very constructive when I say that another newsgroup isn't 
>needed,

Ok, I understand what your're saying. Let me ask: "it isn't
needed" - does that mean you could still go with it? Or would you
object?

I'm still thinking we should have that group. And we had already:
>> For the proposal:
>> +1 by Gina
>> +1 by Robert (Lembke)
>> +1 by me
> +1 Andi (lastname)
> +1 Ben van't Ende (expressed in PM)
+1 Christian
+1 Steffen Gebert (from personal note)


>but better language and actually useful discussions in the ones 
>we have.

I think we all can follow that wish. But we'll probably have to
face the fact that opinions about "what is a useful discussion"
will differ very much. I think we'll just have to stand and accept
that.

Cheers!

Martin

-- 
Certified TYPO3 Integrator | TYPO3 Documentation Team Member

http://mbless.de