You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Nearly the whole milestone (issues, issue processing, priorities etc.) is wrong, starting with the label "Maintenance Sprint", which is simply not reflecting reality.
It is one thing to fail, its another thing to insist to continue failing. Who fails? Well, try to assess this yourself, 'cause I will not take the "bad guy" role here. Just one hint: It's in summary 4 people.
Now, seeing my efforts (mainly trying to convince/showcase within private email, loosing excessive amounts of time this way) were for nothing, I have adapted to the new situation and updated the task #3679, to avoid being dragged into failure.
I will from this point on stop monitoring the metamask-extension repo (which is a pure motivation and efficiency killer), and focus on mm-vault based on a "cold" metamask-extension repo.
.
P.S.: rereading this, it sounds a bit harsh. Its partially due to my frustration of not being able to run decently on the road, as no shoes seem to simulate the low-stressing barefoot-on-grass. Got a pair of Merrell, nothing. Got a pair of Altra, nothing. Anyway, leaving the original text as-is, cause its better to get some "harsh criticism" from the inside, than from the outside (users).
P.S. 2: 2018-04-22: The "maintenance" milestone has introduced new regressions (one step forward, two back). But to be clear: the described "failure" is nothing special. The "root-cause-of-failure" is within the upper-management (ConsenSys), and not within MetaMask. MM was in PoC state (and is still labeled "beta"), and had to deal with a skyrocketing userbase (6000% up in just a few months). All further problems are the direct result of "no upper management is intervening" (flat hierarchy - there is no upper management, or its passive)
Edits
fixed typo
added P.S.
added P.S. 2
deleted
2018-08-03: recreated issue-text, mainly for task-documentation / transparency reasons.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
[ This is not to trigger a discussion, but solely for personal task-documentation purposes ]
Milestone: Maintenance Sprint
Nearly the whole milestone (issues, issue processing, priorities etc.) is wrong, starting with the label "Maintenance Sprint", which is simply not reflecting reality.
It is one thing to fail, its another thing to insist to continue failing. Who fails? Well, try to assess this yourself, 'cause I will not take the "bad guy" role here. Just one hint: It's in summary 4 people.
Now, seeing my efforts (mainly trying to convince/showcase within private email, loosing excessive amounts of time this way) were for nothing, I have adapted to the new situation and updated the task #3679, to avoid being dragged into failure.
I will from this point on stop monitoring the
metamask-extension
repo (which is a pure motivation and efficiency killer), and focus on mm-vault based on a "cold" metamask-extension repo..
P.S.: rereading this, it sounds a bit harsh. Its partially due to my frustration of not being able to run decently on the road, as no shoes seem to simulate the low-stressing barefoot-on-grass. Got a pair of Merrell, nothing. Got a pair of Altra, nothing. Anyway, leaving the original text as-is, cause its better to get some "harsh criticism" from the inside, than from the outside (users).
P.S. 2: 2018-04-22: The "maintenance" milestone has introduced new regressions (one step forward, two back). But to be clear: the described "failure" is nothing special. The "root-cause-of-failure" is within the upper-management (ConsenSys), and not within MetaMask. MM was in PoC state (and is still labeled "beta"), and had to deal with a skyrocketing userbase (6000% up in just a few months). All further problems are the direct result of "no upper management is intervening" (flat hierarchy - there is no upper management, or its passive)
Edits
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: