ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Cook" <jimc...@iname.com>
Subject RE: Updated design docs
Date Sun, 14 Jan 2001 18:08:01 GMT
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]

> Look. I'm not into heavyweight processes. I really don't think that doing
> design docs and such is really going to get us any closer to having a good
> piece of code.

I think that others will disagree, I know I do.

> It comes from your paragraph. If you can't see it, well. Maybe
> highlighting two things here would help:
>
>     1) you said, to quote, "rabble-rouse" (which is spelled correctly
>        according to my spell checker).

Interesting quote in your Jakarta membership, "James (is) a rabble rouser
that helped convince Sun that it was a "Good Thing(tm)" to support the
Jakarta Project with code and engineers.".

>     2) there was a smiley face attached. Humor 101.

One man's humor is another man's waste of time. All I see is you trying to
paint me as someone who wants to see you gone. I have no wish for you to go
away, and contrary to your words in my mouth, I have never stated so. I *do*
wish that you would in your position as Chairman of the PMC help to lay a
path to Ant 2.0 that is inclusive and not divisive. I also don't feel that
this requires a heavyweight process. How about we try a simple process that
all can agree with.

At one time, this "simple" process was a call for proposals. That turned
into a fiasco, but I look back at the mail and wonder what would of happened
if you didn't "come back". (Not to be construed as I want you to go away.) I
wonder how the Sam, Peter, Stefan and Connor (and other voices of Ant) would
have handled the process of debate and articulation of a concrete direction?
It seemed that Peter was championing AntFarm and Connor felt that Ant 1.2
needed just a little tweaking to shake it up.

I think that the negative email you receive on this subject is not aimed at
your ideas, but rather the autocratic manner in which you presume to deliver
them.

> <technical debate snipped>
I think I will take your technical critique into a different thread so as
not to turn this thread into a novel.



> Whatever. There's been more productive conversation about what Ant will
> become in the last few weeks and a whole lot less fighting --
> that is until you come in with this post.

I haven't read *any* discussion about what Ant will become, seriously. Is
there another forum? Perhaps there should be.

Proposal: Create a sepearate mail list "ant-design" to discuss the future of
Ant 2.0.

> However, also along the way, I've done a lot of thinking about
> what it means
> to take code open source -- what it means, and why people should
> do it.

> If, as you and others have said or implied, when somebody open
> sources code they should just walk away from it and never care
> about it again -- then what's the motive?

I think you just misquoted everyone who commented about this topic. I don't
remember anyone saying that you should walk away. I believe that you said
that was a choice that *you* made. What everyone objected to was you coming
back and assuming autocratic control.

> What drives anybody who's created something? What drives you to
> keep popping
> up and saying "Hey, nobody is paying attention to this thing I created!"?

I do have a lot of pride in what I do, and *many* people have written
private emails to me supporting my design. The only reason I continue to
push it is the people who decide where Ant is going, all have their pet
projects and have told me that they haven't even looked at the proposal yet.
For those that have, they haven't commented on it in a positive or negative
manner.

> Have I thought many times about how certain things would get simpler if
> everything were indeed a task as you propose. Yep. I have. However, I just
> don't see it keeping things simpler to use.

I *really* don't understand this. What would get more complicated?

jim


Mime
View raw message