lilypond-user
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Reducing staff numbers in LilyPond


From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Reducing staff numbers in LilyPond
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 10:00:56 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.0.50 (gnu/linux)

James Harkins <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 16 Oct 2017 20:38, "Ken Williams" <address@hidden> wrote: 
>> I honestly did not expect this kind of response, and I'm getting it from 
>> multiple people.  I asked a technical question and got a whole bunch of 
>> "answers" saying I'm stupid to try to achieve that effect.  Except for 
>> Kieren hinting that it will probably be difficult, there has been *zero* 
>> actual discussion about the technical aspects of it. 
>>  
>> If LilyPond or its community isn't friendly to people who want to 
>> experiment with notation, I guess I'm finding that out pretty quickly. 
>
[...]

> I can see how some of the comments on this thread came across like,
> "You're doing it wrong," and this could seem like hostility toward the
> idea of experimenting with notation. I read it a bit differently. The
> commenters are expressing concern that you may have unpleasant
> surprises when you get into rehearsal. Some expressed this with
> sarcasm, which usually doesn't come across well in e-mail.

"Some" is an overgeneralization I think.  I indeed read one reply I
considered inappropriate.  Don't remember whether I'd have characterized
it as "sarcasm", but at any rate, sarcasm does not work in real life for
putting a discussion back on track, and it isn't suitable for mailing
lists either.

Now it is the nature of a mailing list discussion that you don't have
different faces to deal with and don't have a graded response to
different people.  So 5 different responses with two having a slight
barb don't average out but become 2 barbs.

As a result, it is pretty easy to get a discussion to derail when there
are a number of participants with similar opinion.  That makes it hard
for newcomers with opinions that don't match a long-reached consensus.
In addition, such a long-reached consensus is likely to trigger
reactions of the "not again" type, even though the newcomer has no way
to guess that, nor was privy to the discussions leading to that
consensus.

-- 
David Kastrup



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]