avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: urban legend ...
Date Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:10:14 GMT

Berin Loritsch wrote:

> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>> Paul Hammant wrote:
>>> Stephen,
>>> We had some steerage from outside the committer list of this project 
>>> did we not? 
>> Yep - lots of steerage - bugger all contribution.
>> But it kind of makes sense.  If you go back and look at the context 
>> we wanted to say (in fact we were desperate to say) "yes - we are 
>> united" and we plastered over our differences (and for good 
>> reasons).  Six months down the track and the plaster is falling off.  
>> Instead of doing things because we are trying to hold together a 
>> picture, we can actually talk about doing things because we want to.
> If we are not united, then the future of this project at ASF is limited,
> at best.  I have tried my hardest to get us united--but apparently all 
> that
> work was for nothing.  I failed to provide a vision we could all get 
> behind.
> I failed to help us agree on certain key things that I believe would help
> our users (the meta tags).  I failed to get us all working on one code 
> base
> with one purpose. 

Actually Berin I think we are much more united that you think.  The 
difference is that I'm more interested in freely being united than being 
united by inscription. 

> The status quo sucks.  It sucks for our users, it sucks for us, and it 
> sucks
> for people subscribed to this list.  What would make us united?  You 
> tell me,
> I can't seem to do it.

What will make us united is the freedom of everyone here to choose if, 
what, how, why and when unity can/should occur, based on an individuals 
interests, desires and passions, mixed with the stuff and circumstance 
that is Avalon.  Instead of pushing, let go! Demonstrate your confidence 
in the community and the potential for emergent solutions.

>> Stephen.
>> .. where "we" is simply my perception of "us", "then" - if you known 
>> what I mean ...
> Actually no.  What do you mean? 

Loosely translated it means that the association of "we" is in fact a 
mental projection of the broader "us" at a time in the past, and as 
such, I maintain all rights to the claim of plausible deniability of 
said thoughts, on the grounds that it didn't at a time that wasn't on a 
subject that isn't.



Stephen J. McConnell

Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service.

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

View raw message