To be clear, the system I'm suggesting is about show, not tell. It requires no emotions:
1. First person drafts a solution. 2. Another person doesn't like it so he drafts an alternative solution. 3. The other developers then look at the two solutions and further build upon the solution that they like better. 4. Repeat. Kind of like a proof of work chain system, now that I think about it.
I don't see how adding in emotions, whether whining or praising, are an improve upon this system at all, but thanks for your explanation.
This ignores the (rational, if naive) cost-benefit of a complaint about someone else's work: if they accept your complaint as valid, then you get what you want for 0 cost. Additionally, since they agreed it was a valid criticism, in the creator's view the product was improved, overall. This is globally a very efficient scheme, because there is often a significant barrier to "showing" an alternative solution, particularly if the solution is the culmination of a lifetime of study.
When criticism is ignorant, purely selfish, or otherwise not constructive, it becomes a problem. And I don't think FOSS leaders should have any problem expressing this sort of judgement without anger or ill-will.
1. First person drafts a solution. 2. Another person doesn't like it so he drafts an alternative solution. 3. The other developers then look at the two solutions and further build upon the solution that they like better. 4. Repeat. Kind of like a proof of work chain system, now that I think about it.
I don't see how adding in emotions, whether whining or praising, are an improve upon this system at all, but thanks for your explanation.