RE: Moving forward with ISSUE-30 (IRI template expansion)

On 20 Aug 2014 at 00:11, McBennett, Pat wrote:
> Markus Lanthaler wrote on 19 Aug 2014 at 11:21:
>> On 19 Aug 2014 at 09:10, McBennett, Pat wrote:
>> Pat, we have endless alternatives but if we keep proposing new
alternatives
>> instead of discussing existing proposal, we won't make any progress.
> 
> Ouch!

Sorry if this came across as being harsh to you personally. It wasn't
certainly meant that way. The thing that triggered that comment was the fact
that my question whether you could live with "variableRepresentation" wasn't
answered at all, instead you provided a list of new alternatives. I do
understand that you already expressed your concerns with the term
"representation" and probably just decided to not restate them.


>> Naming is hard. Not everyone will be happy with every decision we'll
make.
>> Standardization often means that the result will be something that makes
>> everyone equally unhappy.
> 
> I completely and utterly agree. That's *why* I was suggesting
> alternatives. In my experience with difficult naming decisions, having
> *more* alternatives on the table actually helps the discussion.

Sure, thanks. It's part of my role to ensure we make progress. It was (and
still is) my impression that the group is happy with
"variableRepresentation", but you raised concerns. So, my explicit question
to you was an attempt to wrap up the discussions and make a decision.


> I was only offering new alternatives because my understanding of
> this particular issue was greatly improved by the very-much appreciated
> feedback I received (which only came from Markus). I genuinely apologize
> if I was confusing or diverting the discussion - that was never my
intention.

No need to apologize at all Pat. You did nothing wrong. I should have
written my reply in a more nuanced way. So I'm the one to apologize.


>> So, given, that everyone else involved in this
>> discussion seems to be happy with "variableRepresentation" (please 
>> correct me if I'm wrong), I'll ask you again:
>> 
>> Could you live with calling the property "variableRepresentation"? If
>> not, why not?
>> 
> 
> It thought I had made it clear 'why not'. To repeat, I've found developers
> have difficulty with the 'abstractness' of the word 'representation'. I
also
> asked the group 'is it just me?'. As you say, 'everyone else involved in
this
> discussion seems happy' with that term (i.e. nobody has said otherwise) -
> so I guess it *is* just me.
> 
> So can I 'live' with it? Of course can I. I was simply trying to improve
on it
> by offering alternatives I thought developers would be more comfortable
with
> (I thought that was how 'discussion' generally worked). But I'm sorry if
my
> contributions weren't helping - "variableRepresentation" it is...

Again, thanks for trying to help to improve this by providing more
alternatives. Nevertheless, I think it is time to make a decision on this
and call it "variableRepresentation". I'll make sure to get your input when
we describe this in the specification so that we can at least partially
alleviate your concerns.


Thanks,
Markus


--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:31:50 UTC