My original post was never about the chip set discussion. It was about tone, community relations, and pointed out the sarcasm, mocking, and arrogance. Sure, these are all common in coder culture, but as other more “code-y” people have pointed out, it goes hand in hand with a wider disenchantment with their approach to community building, whether on SLDev or elsewhere.

While Grace is right – coders can be cowboys, and it’s admirable of her to point that out, the more I’ve thought about it and read the commentary (especially over on the forums) the more I think that her initial call of “bullshit” should be reconsidered.

The other thing is, as I’ve pointed out in my blog, is that from past experience, people extrapolate what happens from the point when somewhere in LL someone comes up with a new “this is something we’re working on” thing.

With a different company (one with a different track record of how to implement innovations) and a different attitude (even his very first announcement and call for feedback came with some preemptive “get to grips” comments) an announcement like this would have had the guy covered in rose petals.

With LL however, there is a reason that people are quick to draw torches and pitchforks … even if it’s just bad communication and a bad-day, the communication quirks have quite a history with the Lab.

So, certainly – innovate from within, push the limits, and push the minimum spec needed to ‘enjoy the grid’ while you’re at it – Blue Mars is doing it, SL should prep for it, and I’ve been dreaming of rendered shadows and ambient occlusion from day one. I retract this as an example of community relations.

It really makes me stop and wonder, however, whether I should stop contributing “mantras” to this wider debate – far wiser minds than mine have obviously thought long and hard about it. I certainly appreciate the insight into management theory as well, Grace, and I think you’ve got something there about giving space to the team to push the limits.

Linden has done quite well with its approach, philosophy, attitude, coding gurus, and continues to be sustained by the thoughtful insight of the long time residents. So apologies because I really feel like I hit some sort of sore spot – and again, retract this as any sort of indication of Linden’s overall attitude, culture, or as a small signature of hubris – as you so rightly point out, this is what’s needed – innovation, pushing limits, pushing back and pushing the envelope.

I’ll try in the future to contribute more than a few mantras, really this blog is just random observations and feelings, but I should try to show respect for the coders and management style that’s brought us so far.

I appreciate your patience Grace and Shin, sometimes we need to stumble around a little looking for the root of our frustrations and often find them misplaced.

I would rather people didn’t feel restricted when saying things in this sort of arena, honest communication saving a lot of time in development, but one always has to mind oneself a _bit_, just out of politeness. (And If it _wasn’t_ the result of frustration, or a sudden sarcastic whim, and does actually reflect opinion, then that is quite a serious issue.)

You post excerpts are exclusively from that list, although your points may have been otherwise, I didn’t see any examples of such. Mentors are volunteers not Lindens; they represent or speak for Linden Lab. As for other things, you’d have to be more clear on that point for me to understand.

“You move the platform ahead because you have a coherent vision to which the code is subservient.”

In practical terms, if you don’t allow your technical team to have forward thinking space and freedom, call it “vision”, then they get complacent and stale.

So yes, please have some product management vision and a means by which to execute against that, but don’t expect to be ahead of the game if all you have to execute are code monkeys clattering away in the background waiting for the next work order.

It’s about balance; all product vision with no technical forward thinking lends itself to being dangerously ignorant and behind in the marketplace.

We should probably ask – “What percentage of development hours are going against innovation versus sustainment?” That might be a more meaningful conversation rather than exchanging mantras.

Now..you want to talk hubris…I think your column on the child avi SL5B builds points that out much better…^_^. They could have just accepted the builds (in PG regions), and made the content decisions based up the normal PG rules. That way they would not have felt they had to exclude any SL group. As for the dev above..he should be programming for the 10,000 series…^_^

AMEN!!