ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm
Date Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:11:15 GMT

I have to say that I appreciate what you've said below, James.  I am
personally going to have to do some hard thinking about this situation.
Actually, I think we all need to do some hard, calm thinking about things
over the holidays.

Glenn McAllister
Software Developer. IBM Toronto Lab, (416) 448-3805
"An approximate answer to the right question is better than the
right answer to the wrong question." - John W. Tukey

Please respond to

To:   <>
Subject:  Re: Whoa Bessie... Was -- Re: [Proposal] AntFarm

On 12/21/00 7:08 AM, "Siberski, Wolf" <> wrote:

> Quite the opposite. When James announced he would spend more time and
> to Ant, everyone applauded. The dispute started when he claimed to have
> special rights to determine the direction of Ant. And, frankly, this is a
> disputable question (I'm appreciating a *lot* what he has done for Open
> in the meantime).
> Then James started claiming he had the right to dominate. Unfortunately
> instead of resolving that dispute directly, people were starting to
> lots of proposals to block James's claims. We still discuss technical
> arguments on the surface, while the real issue remains unsettled.

[this section is aimed more generally and not a direct response to Wolf]

I don't remember applause when I said I'd be back. In fact there was a lot
of fretting about revolutions and such. Then when I started publishing
stuff, people discounted positions that I've taken since day one in my
admittedly infrequent posts here. We got caught in a position of where
things that I had -1'd a long time ago where in, and by proposing to change
them back I'm -1'd  -- along with the statement that I'm not worthy of
casting a -1. This discounting of ideas *did* put me in a foul mood to
with. And I'm not above saying that that mood influenced the bluntness with
which I did make some of those posts.

And then we got like 4 proposals in rapid succession.

Quite frankly as far as I'm concerned I haven't been welcome here in a long
time. During the last year, the times when I've managed to pop up my head
and say "Hey, that's wrong and here's why" -- and then I'd get buried and
have to do something else and I'd come back and see that it was in anyways.

However, if you'll notice I didn't start writing emails to the effect that
had *some* privileges until the time when people said, not clearly, but
essentially, "go away, you have no rights here". Then I started arguing
I did have rights. And quite frankly, being told to go away is a slap in
face. Admittedly I did throw weight around. I was peeved.

It was when I started even saying that I had some right to be here that all
the hate came out.

So -- don¹t take the above as any more of an argument. In fact, I'd
appreciate if you take it in a spirit of me explaining why I said some
things rather harshly and didn't come across very balanced and reasonable..
For that I apologize. Maybe now that I've written a bit more, you might
understand. If not, that's fine. I don't expect people to be clear headed
after what's gone on.

However, that doesn't change my core assertion that I've got as much a
to be here as anyone -- and that I think I've got a right to Ant's "vision
thing". Other visions are fine, but they aren't Ant imo. I'll work *hard*
make sure that people have the chance they need to explore other ideas.
Other thoughts on what a Java Based Build System is. Call 'em what you will
-- different ideas, forks, whatnot. Competition is good. But they *are*
different. They *aren't* Ant.

I don't think the above paragraph is a claim to dictatorship or being a
czar. However I'm *sure* that people will disagree with me on that.

> As I see it, one of the most fundamental differences between James's
> for Ant and the vision of some other committers is that in James opinion
> should focus on Java projects (with support for other uses seen as 'nice
> have' at best), while others are heading towards a more general build
tool or
> even task engine (with support for Java projects the most important
> requirement).

You've hit it on the head here. Yes, Ant is for Java projects. That's what
it's for. From the beginning.

> Honestly, I feel Your statements are more than
> biased, and You do no one a favour with it,
> not even James. Instead You have largened the
> gap between the 'Jakarta VIP group' and
> the 'Ant committers group', and that is a pity.

Be careful here. Pier is a Member of the Apache Software Foundation, as is
Jon as is Craig as is Jason. The code and projects of the Apache Software
Foundation are owned by it's members. The Members are responsible for those
projects. Currently the members delegate that responsibility to the PMCs.
The PMCs delegate from there. Ownership of the codebase is clear. It says
©year Apache Software Foundation. Since the ASF is its members, its members
are essentially "shareholders" in the foundation, the code is owned
essentially by the Members.

So, therefore you might be better served by stating that your opinion is
that his message has largened the gap between the "ASF Members who happen
care about Ant and Jakarta" vs. the "Ant Committers Group".

Not that I like such a statement, it actually makes me sad to say it, but
I'm simply clarifying what you are really saying there.

> The next step should be getting consensus about vision and main

I'm attempting this with putting together that document on my website.


James Duncan Davidson
                                                                  !try; do

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message