avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] Remove all/most one-man codebases
Date Thu, 05 Dec 2002 13:34:57 GMT
Ok - then tell me. How are things ever going to get better in Avalon then? We 
have codebases in Avalon that are divisve - all of them one-man codebases.

Sure we can propose a new framework/container...

Technically that is high risk, with a long incubation period and it is likely 
that a year from now it will still suck.

Socially it is unlikely to go much better and will likely only cause more 
division/polarization. We already have seen oodles of FUD and insults at even 
the mention of these things.

So whatever way you cut it you are setting Avalon up for a fall because code 
means nothing without community and in this environment there is little 
chance of community.

There some like me who can no longer contribute. I am still not really clear 
on why my cvs access was removed - however it was and is unlikely to be 
returned. It seems like Nicola has decided that I no longer have other rights 
such as voting rights. So there is little chance of influence there. All in 
all my ability to contribute has been mostly removed.

However by far the biggest problem is that many people are not here purely for 
the benefit of Avalon as a whole. For example;

- how long have we needed to move to maven for our builds. I know of at least 
three different committers who have expressed a desire to move towards it but 
are reluctent to propose it because they will be jumped on by Nicola. Sure it 
would be in Avalons best interests to upgrade (at least excalibur/scratchpad) 
to maven but it wouldn't be in centipedes best interest and thus ...

- look to how Stefano acts like a tool everytime someone mentions anakia or 
says Cocoon is not the brightest star in the sky.

- look at conflict between info/meta. Info is technically a far better choice 
but there is little chance of going wit it without massive conflict/FUD. 
There are two people who have said to me that they will block it regardless 
of technical merit (and neither was Stephen).

etc.

I could continue to list the problems. Many committers seem to think that 
consensus == majority vote which is not a view I hold. Up until recently all 
management decisions required 100% of us onboard but now we have seen a 
number of votes pushed through with a simple majority and in short enough 
time frame to stop any possibility of people thinking things through. 

Personally I think that *all* decisions should require the consensus of *all* 
committers. Someone recently said something along the lines of "avalon bad as 
forks are seen as path forward" or similar which characterises how bad a 
situation it has got. 

We have always gone out of our way to allow and encourage experimentation and 
except for more recent times there has never been code ownership for these 
experiments because it was always assumed that the group "owned" the code. 
And the experiments always assumed that if successful they would be 
reintegrated or built upon or whatever. When new people start to associate 
these experiments with so heavily negative concepts (aka forks and code 
ownership) does that not indicate to you that there is problems.

Removing all one man code bases would effectively fix the problem in many 
ways. If you have a better idea then please share.

-- 
Cheers,

Peter Donald
*--------------------------------*
| Every rule has an exception,   |
| except the rule of exceptions. |
*--------------------------------* 


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:avalon-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:avalon-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message