Reactor Engineers

[eluser]Michael Wales[/eluser]

Yes getting attention from, in my opinion, people who lack vision.

I simply don't agree that they lack vision. Like I stated in my post, I think their focus right now is on the "quick wins" - how can they increase functionality and garner user support with a minimum of effort. As a manager of a number of developers (and like I said in my previous post) I would much rather them crank out a number of moderately highly requested features, that take a short period of time, than release a single feature that takes an extensive amount of time.

They're current methodology allows them to appease the greatest number of users, in the fastest way possible as well as mitigate the shock factor that comes along with "OMG, they made a huge freaking update".

Ultimately, I must agree with an earlier reply (although I will do so much more tactfully) and say if you aren't happy with it - do something about it. The Reactor team is very open to outside contributions and we all know you, WD, possess the knowledge and the skillset to make those contributions - you've been an amazing member of the community. If you feel as if the Reactor team should be working on something specifically, grab the code, work on it and submit a pull request. Are you too busy to do so? Realize they probably are as well (they're not getting paid for this and have full-time jobs). If you're not happy with the direction in which they are headed, apply to join the Engineer team or sit down with Phil for a chat (he's an awesome guy, very smart and extremely accessible).

Ultimately, I find the way in which you approached this matter to be unfounded, immoral, and downright disrespectful. There are appropriate ways to merit, or at least discuss, each of your demands/concerns - none of which you have attempted. We've been begging for CI to become truly open source for years (you've been around for at least as long as I have) - the Reactor team is the stepping stone towards that process. Rather than flex the open source nature of this process, you've resolved to the "gimme, gimme, gimme" attitude of teenage script kiddies that don't know any better. Which is disappointing to be frank. I had, personally, placed you within the very small group of CI Elite.

[eluser]wiredesignz[/eluser]
@Wales, I don't seek your approval or that from any other developer. I see limitations in the framework which truly prevent it from moving forward technically as it should. And the Reactor Engineers without the vision to address the issues.

CI has always been the easiest framework to learn from and begin your first steps into using the MVC design pattern. Being easy to learn does not excuse CI from being flexible and extensible.

I see the Reactor Engineers asking the "community" what should be in the framework and I find this to be a pointless exercise. No competent developer could expect to be heard over the noise created by the "I want Auth" newbie crowd. So there is nothing for it other than being heard here on the forums.

I would like to see real transparency in the decisions made about what is going into the framework. I really dislike seeing Sturgeon committing every day while the others do very little and really dislike seeing Horrigan's work committed without open consultation about its value.

[eluser]Basketcasesoftware[/eluser]
Wow! When you said 'seniors' I actually had to look at my join date. It seems so much longer. Actually I was exposed to CI in the middle of last year but it's only been recently that I've had the opportunity to begin working with it.

[eluser]Basketcasesoftware[/eluser]
[quote author="wiredesignz" date="1297776425"]@Wales, I don't seek your approval or that from any other developer. I see limitations in the framework which truly prevent it from moving forward technically as it should. And the Reactor Engineers without the vision to address the issues.

CI has always been the easiest framework to learn from and begin your first steps into using the MVC design pattern. Being easy to learn does not excuse CI from being flexible and extensible.

I see the Reactor Engineers asking the "community" what should be in the framework and I find this to be a pointless exercise. No competent developer could expect to be heard over the noise created by the "I want Auth" newbie crowd. So there is nothing for it other than being heard here on the forums.

I would like to see real transparency in the decisions made about what is going into the framework. I really dislike seeing Sturgeon committing every day while the others do very little and really dislike seeing Horrigan's work committed without open consultation about its value.[/quote]

That last paragraph makes sense. And I think it goes to the heart of your complaints. Am I right?

[eluser]Michael Wales[/eluser]

@Wales, I don’t seek your approval or that from any other developer. I see limitations in the framework which truly prevent it from moving forward technically as it should. And the Reactor Engineers without the vision to address the issues.

So, fix it - write code and submit pull requests. You are smart enough to figure this out on your own, you don't need us to tell you. Apply to become an engineer - do something other than bitch, which gets us nowhere.

I see the Reactor Engineers asking the “community” what should be in the framework and I find this to be a pointless exercise.

I simply disagree - CI has always been, as you admit, an easy to approach framework. Developers like you, myself, Derek Allard, Dan Horrigan and countless others have honestly outgrown the framework. Sure, we may continue to use it - only because we've managed to roll our own version with numerous extensions or we may be able to "mold" the framework into our vision very quickly - but honestly, you and I both work at a level well beyond the average CI user.

It's the Reactor team's goal to take the work you and I do on a daily basis (both public and private) and gracefully roll that into the framework, document it, and take what you and I know to be improvements and incite the average developer to use within their daily work. Like it or not - we're not average developers, we have over a half century history with this framework - we know shit, have personal preferences, insights and dogma that may/may not fit within the "entry-level" market of CodeIgniter. You and I have responded to literally thousands of posts and I think we can agree - CodeIgniter attracts a significant amount of "noob" traffic, it's ultimately the selling point of CodeIgniter (as you readily admit). The Reactor team can't just leave these people behind for the sake of innovation - it has to be a graceful and slow process.

I really dislike seeing Sturgeon committing every day while the others do very little and really dislike seeing Horrigan’s work committed without open consultation about its value.

To a certain extent, I agree - Phil is working his ass off and bless him for it. Do I think Dan's work is being committed without being pitted against the coding/documentation standards of the rest of the team - absolutely not. Lest we not forget, Dan was an EllisLab employee - he's used to working with these requirements in place. With that said, could I name a single other developer on the Reactor team? Nope. I partially contribute this to the fact I have been absent from the community for a long time but overall, I think the Reactor team needs to do a much better job in regards to transparency. Overall, I think it's a downfall on EllisLab's part - they created this beast, they now need to support it. Recently there was a change made allowing models to load subsequent models (sorry, the developer's name escape me - case in point). Fortunately, the developer made an excellent blog post in regards to it, detailing everything you would need to know - this should have been mirrored by EllisLab on the CI blog.

[eluser]ralf57[/eluser]
I was quite surprised not seeing wiredesignz's name among the Reactor's Engineers at the time the team was created.
Sure there were other devs as good candidates but wiredesignz contributions and support in the forums undoubtedly deserved a place in the CI Elite.
This would have allowed him to bring/discuss his ideas from a different point of view.
My opinion is that Ellis Lab didn't want to change too much the way CI is perceived by new users, and tried to take small steps forward instead of innovate the framework.

[eluser]CoolGoose[/eluser]
@wiredesignz what's stopping you in forking the framework, and just pulling in changes that you like ?

Nobody is questioning your contribution to the community, but right now you're acting exactly like a selfish child.
Everybody wants this framework to be better (heck i would love HMVC in) but just bitching isn't solving the issue.

Blogging about something isn't a method of saying, hey look at me i'm smarter than you, it's a method to propose and reveal to the world what you want.

Do a nice post, even a nice forum topic would work, with your concerns (explained concerns, not the whole engineers suck, codeigniter isn't extensible).

[eluser]Tom Schlick[/eluser]
@wired - then send a pull request with the changes you want or shut up

[eluser]wiredesignz[/eluser]
@Schlick, Nice contribution, as always.

[eluser]Tom Schlick[/eluser]
@wired - as always you're in a deep argument with half of the community, instead of writing something up on here or a blog post outlining your views you just complain that people are incompetent. grow up. you have contributed a lot to the community and we are all grateful, but there are better ways to inflict change in the framework. the biggest would be to commit code and plead your case. im sure many would be right along with you in the changes you want but when you come off as a douche no one wants to be on your side.