[Libre-soc-dev] gigabit router design decisions

[lkcl]

On November 4, 2021 6:59:52 PM UTC, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, Nov 4, 2021, 11:24 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl at lkcl.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2021 at 5:13 PM Jacob Lifshay
><programmerjake at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, I did not realize the extent of conflict and stress that luke
>and my
>> > argument was causing, I apologize for that.
>>
>> Jacob you should have listened to the fact that it was causing *me*
>> distress,
>>
>
>Well, not that it's a decent excuse, but luke, your the primary one
>making
>decisions, so your the one who has to convince everyone that your
>decisions
>are the best, part of that is discussing with people who think things
>would
>work out better if done somewhat differently.

not when it takes four days, during which time:

1) you do absolutely no useful work
2) you prevent me from doing useful work
3) you cause other people to stop doing useful work

you just 20 minutes ago from the time of writing that you committed to stop aggravating the project and causing distress to all team members and yet you are now going back on your word.



>this is disrespectful and distressing *to me*!
>>
>
>Sorry that I appeared to disrespect you, that was not my intention.

i realise that, but you did, and are, by failing to respect and trust my expertise and experience.

you do this yet again only a few paragraphs later.
>well, I've been pushing for it cuz: 1. I'm pretty sure it will have a
>much
>lower impact on completion time, around 3-5% or so

we have already estsblished multiple times from multiple experiences that you are unable to correctly guage timescales 

in addition to that, we also know from experience that anything that you are involved in you fail to listen to my advice and experience, drastically lengthening the timescales simply through failing to properly listen.

i have to repeat things, five to six to eight times, all of which takes time, all of which is a major distraction.

if you continue down this path of not listening it some point i am just going to give up and write you off, because the amount of time spent on trying to get you to listen, when you repeatedly continue to fail to listen and continue to be so terribly disrespectful, i will be forced to conclude that you are not worth teaching because you cannot learn, and cannot be trusted.

as that is public and clearly documented it will seriously damage your reputation: people will find this conversation and say, "dang, that project leader tried reslly hard to get that guy to listen, really tried to teach him, and he threw it in his face.  if he can do that to soneone so patient, he will do it to us. no way we are giving him a job"



> (mostly taken up by
>extra testing needed, the testing is not on the critical path since
>other
>parts of the cpu can be worked on simultaneously by using either the
>existing simple fetch/issue logic or by using the new fetch/issue while
>tests are being developed). 2. it will make the resulting processor run
>50%
>(!!) faster, which is highly significant.

every day, every moment that you continue not to listen is another moment where the project's timescales are damaged.




>>
>> desperation level 1: something that is so long it can't be completed
>in
>> time
>> desperation level 2: something that's sub-optimal but allows us to
>> complete the contract.
>>
>> which do you think is more important?
>>
>
>2 is, but only if you accept the likely flawed assumption that adding a
>branch predictor falls into category 1.
>
>compared to "a little desperation" the consequences of "just put this
>> code in it will only increase the timescales by 25%" seems to be
>> pretty frickin stupid, would you not agree?
>>
>
>yes, if your flawed assumption that it really increases timescales by
>25%
>is accepted as fact.

jacob: what you are saying here, which is really insulting, is:

1) lkcl is incompetent and after 18 months of developing an ASIC, and 20+ years of Project Management, incapable of judging time and task estimates.

2) lkcl, after informing me multiple times that further discussion instead of listening and taking action is aggravating the project, is not worth listening to or respecting, and therefore the project is not important either.

both of these things are deeply disrespectful and making me extremely angry, as well as causing me huge amounts of distress.

*i* accept the responsibility of the committments made to NLnet and to NGI POINTER, whose reputations are on the line as well as mine *and yours*

you clearly do not accept - or understand - the responsibility.


>yeah, I'm listening, however I will point out that I have a lot of
>experience in how fast I can write code (waay more than your experience
>in
>my code writing speed), which is where my time estimates come from.

we have already established, and you have completely ignored and failed to take into consideration, that code is not the sole exclusive task.

you have failed repeatedly to acknowledge or accept thar code is not the sole exclusive task.

i have given a list of the expected tasks for adding the feature you have kept on demanding for four days (4% of the available time)

you failed to acknowledge those tasks.

the very fact that you are unable to acknowledge the list of actual tasks *is* why your time estimates are so badly wrong.

and, to make matters worse, you continue to argue from faulty judgement without listening to what people with more experience are saying.

this flagrantly violates multiple Charter Systemic Laws, and i have resisted stating this so bluntly for some time.

1) respect for experience as well as length of service.

you are failing to respect both.  above you actually stated, "if your estimates are taken as fact" which is extremely disrespectful.

2) reality is acknowledged and accepted.

the reality of the time pressure and that we are under contract is something you have systematically ignored.

you have also not really accepted the responsibility for the consequences of working on rust unpaid for 18 months instead of helping with Libre-SOC.

3) acceptance of roles

you have failed to acknowledge or accept your role, and have been repeatedly disrespectful and failed to acknowledge mine.

4) acceptance of responsibility

you have taken on responsibility and yet have failed to honour it, instead letting people down by not responding and not completing tasks, nor offering or asking which tasks are most urgent.

i did not inform NLnet that you were not working on Libre-SOC for 18 months.  you let everyone down especially me by leaving me to cover for you, i had to take on the full responsibility for completing tasks that you did not offer to help with.


with that as context, do you start to see why i might be a little bit pissed off that you are quoting the "unanimous decisions" part of the Charter to me?

if you had at the very least said, "eek, i totally get that we are under contract and under time pressure, how can we do things in a non-risky way and meet the deadlines?" i would have said, "ok let's discuss that (but not too much)" safe and confident that you were truly "getting it".

nobody else on the team argues for several DAYS when the context is "extreme time pressure".

why is it that you do?

l.