[Libre-soc-dev] gigabit router design decisions

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl at lkcl.net
Thu Nov 4 18:23:52 GMT 2021

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, which should have been blindingly obvious when i was telling
you from experience of Project Management and Time Assessments
that you're not listening and have demonstrated an inability to make
accurate judgements!

this is disrespectful and distressing *to me*!

> I guess no one's willing to trust me when I confidently say that I can
> write the code that we desperately need, this is quite disappointing

ok, if you would like to use "desperation", we need to invent two levels
of "desperation".

"desperation level 1" - code, documentation and unit tests with branch
"desperation level 2" - code without.

when "desperation level 1" adds a whopping 25% to the completion time
of a time-pressured project, it should be blindingly f*****g obvious that
it is completely suicidal and destructive to the entire project to attempt it.

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?

this is not a rhetorical question: please respond and answer which one you think
is more important.  even though it's prettty obvious, it's important that
you indicate to me - and to everyone - that you actually actually understand
and accept which one is important.

(i have noticed that you've repeatedly ignored questions that i've said
are not rhetorical)

logically: if the time to complete "desperation level 1" is so long that it
actually prevents us from meeting the contract, with the inherent risk of:

* jeapordising our reputation with NLnet
* making NGI POINTER look foolish for backing us
* destroying *MY* reputation because i said to FundingBox that i'd take
  LEGAL responsibility for any potential Audit that may occur
* affecting our reputation with the EU with regards to the 22.6 million
  Euro grant
* adversely affecting our standing with Venture Capitalists who are
  clearly going to do their research and find this conversation
  [welcome to Libre/Open Projects: it's "heart-on-sleeves" and there's
   *really* nothing hidden]

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?

> (especially considering that the charter explicitly says decision making
> should be unanimous),

yes... except because you effectively left and re-joined (as far as writing
HDL is concerned), you're on "probation".  and, you've demonstrated
an inability to judge time as well as other critieria (described above the
consequences of failure to listen and failure to deliver)

i'm glad you've finally understood at least the consequences of your
continued insistence to push mis-evaluated critiera over-and-above
really *really* important criteria.

but - and i have to say this - i have noticed that you only said you'd
stop "because of disruption perceived by other people" - *not* by
disruption and distress caused to *me*, the person that also has
Asperger's and has a lot more experience than you.

over time you'll be able to properly guage time and risk, but to do
that properly you need to *listen* to people who have 20+ years
experience in doing that, ok?


More information about the Libre-soc-dev mailing list