forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <thors...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Forrest history (was Re: svn commit: r384121)
Date Fri, 10 Mar 2006 20:44:47 GMT
El vie, 10-03-2006 a las 11:00 +0100, Maurice Gittens escribió:
> On Thursday 09 March 2006 20:32, you wrote:
> > > While lurking on this list, I, a few times, took issue with the way merit
> > > seems to be repudiated by certain members in the Forrest community. The
> > > commit that reverted the mention of Thorsten as the inventor of the
> > > dispatcher actually made me decide that the Forrest project is not for
> > > me.
> >
> > For me, the key is that the dispatcher is not possible without a whole
> > load of code that existed prior to the creation of the dispatcher and
> > without the input of the community in design discussion.
> 
> You state this as a fact; while I dare doubt it. I happen to be convinced that
> Thorsten _could_ have implemented similar functionality without
> the code that existed prior to the dispatcher. But that is a matter
> of opinion.

Well, I always stated that the dispatcher design actually should be
reusable in any given cocoon app. We still have not reached this point
but the dispatcher is *not* limited to *any* code. The dispatcher is
more a *concept* then actual code! Contracts are a whole different
story. ;)

Regarding the input of the community, Ross is right. The dispatcher
would not be the dispatcher without the forrest community (even the
name ;)).

> 
> Do I want to imply that the community did not help? No, I recognize
> that the community did help. However given the contributions of Thorsten
> regarding the dispatcher it is my opinion that reverting the patch 
> recognizing Thorsten contribution is simply not done. 

Thanks Maurice to express your opinion. I really appreciate what you are
trying to do but please calm down.

We are talking about me and we all know that my first version of
something normally evoles very rapid. ;) I just added the site in the
process of updating http://target-x.de and actually did not put very
much thought in it.

I actually never asked to revert Davids commit and will not do so. I
already changed it the way *I* (as original author of
http://target-x.de) like it (conform to the policy that this discussion
is showing).

Like David said we are a new project and still defining ourself. When
people strongly feel that something should be changed then we are using
it to make a policy. That saves us the time if the issue arises again.
Then we clearly have a policy regarding it and we can refer to it. ;)

> > > In what meritocracy is merit denied those deserving it?
> >
> > In an ASF project merit is given by recognising the contributions of all
> > contributors, not individuals. We recognise individual contributions by
> > voting in as a committers, PMC members and eventually ASF members. We do
> > not do it by recognising individual code contributions.
> >

Well, sorry for being confused. Does being the "inventor" of something
means that others recognise individual code contributions? 

I am not a native speaker, in my native language German and as well in
Spanish "inventor" does not have this meaning. It is hardly even
connected to code. ;)

It means that somebody has took a whole lot of observations and put it
together to a functional unit, solving a problem in a new way. Sometimes
she does not even have to implement it but rather proof the concept. It
is similar to the word discoverer. 

I used the word "inventor" in this context, like I would say Albert
Einstein is one of the biggest inventor all times. ;)

> > > Thorsten did great architectural, design and engineering work in the way
> > > he orthogonalized the primitives needed for advance SOC in the Forrest
> > > framework.
> >
> > For the record, this is absolutely correct in observing the value of his
> >   *leadership* in this work, but there are many others who have
> > contributed to the dispatcher in many different ways, code patches,
> > testing, design discussion, the workshop at ApacheCon, past code
> > contributions etc.
> 
> So, if Thorsten were to claim "leadership" in the dispatcher work; would
> that be acknowledged? My point being; that Thorsten' claim is 
> essentially a valid one; so why should it be reverted?

jeje, sorry, it is actually starting to get funny. ;)

Yes, what would have happened if I had stated "is the website of the
leading dispatcher developer: Thorsten Scherler."?

Why funny? Since it is just a play of words. ;)

> 
> This patch should only be reverted if Thorsten were to claim 
> contributions falsely.

Hmm, it is and never had been *for me* about my conributions for the
dispatcher implementation! 

Like stated above the dispatcher is a concept and not code! I never
claimed ownership on anything, stating being the inventor (or father) of
the dispatcher concept is under above stated context of the meaning of
the word "inventor" and for myself just a matter of the fact. ;)

> 
> You refer to the archives; so I will as well. What impression do you think it
> gives of Thorsten when a person happens to see Thorsten's words being
> removed from the Forrest site so impolitely? 

Well, yes it was quite a suprise for myself as well.

> Do you think that this 
> impression would do justice to Thorsten's contribution and/or his person in 
> this case?

You know, the pub next door will not give me free beer for it (and that
may be worth all the fuzz). ;)

The only thing that worries me that this fuzz may give the image of me,
to *wanted* to be treated specially thinking *I* deserve it and *nobody*
else for spending my spare time developing the dispatcher concept and
implementation. That is dead wrong and people should know better!

> 
> Again, do you sincerely think that the impression created by the removal 
> of Thorsten's words is positive to Thorsten? I do not feel that it is postive 
> to Thorsten. 

You know [1] (mind the last three words): 
"Being no conservative resource at stake (money, energy, time), the
group was happy to have new people coming in and help, they were only
filtering the people that they believed committed enough for the task
and matched the human attitudes required to work well with others,
especially in disagreement." ;)

> In fact I feel that if this wrong is not righted it will not only give an 
> inappropriate impression of Thorsten but is will reflect negatively on 
> the Forrest Project as a whole.

Way too much fuzz. ;) 

IMO it should *only* help to find an apache wide policy about stating
such things on project pages since you will find credits to the orginial
"inventor" or initial code contributors all over apache projects. I do
see *nothing* bad about it and have not yet understood the *why* it
harms the community. 

Like stated:
El jue, 09-03-2006 a las 20:44 +0100, Thorsten Scherler escribió:
> I never have seen university nor commercial studies providing evidence
> for such a relation. Do you have any proof or concrete examples for
> this
> claim?


> >
> > > To do this he needed an appreciation of both the high level
> > > picture and the nitty-gritty details of Forrest.
> > > Does he not deserve a mention for this achievement and contribution?
> >
> > That credit is in the archives, in the SVN logs in the status.xml file,
> > in the changes.html page and in the community memory and, most of all,
> > by the fact that Thorsten is a committer and PMC member of the Forrest
> > project.
> 
> No! The credit is not found in the archives in any proportional sense. 
> Instead, in the archives a disproportional amount of bitching
> and wining about branching, not branching, how to branch, 
> name-calling (remember Mr. confusion?) etc. 
> is to be found but relatively little credit for much of the, IMO , 
> least trivial code to be found in Forrest. 
> 
> What impression do you think this gives to new potential
> contributors? 

Way too much fuzz. ;) 

We have grown together and know each other. If Ross calls me "Mr.
confusion" I know where it is coming from and have no problem add all
with it. (Sometimes) I cannot express myself very well in english nor in
german ;) because I am 3 steps ahead of everyone in my thoughts
(2fast4u) ;) and this causes confusion in explaining the concept behind
my code. It takes a good amount of understanding my *code* to understand
me. ;)

You would need to know me personally to fully understand all my mails. I
am a freak. ;)

Anyhow, the archives are full from "thank you" mails direct to me,
please stop. ;) 

Seriously, to all the new potential contributors you get a lot of
credits here on forrest (gosh, still wish I could buy beers with it ;))

...and the biggest "thank you" *you* could do us for using the code is
having the guts to stay and helping us in forrest after this first
mails. ;) 

> >
> > > Is it fair to project the fact that some feel their contribution are not
> > > worthy mention, unto all?
> >
> > Exactly - by claiming ownership (or implying ownership) one diminishes
> > the contributions of others!
> 
> I asked question. You don't provide an answer but try to put words into my 
> mouth instead?  I'm sorry I can't let you get away with that.!
> 
> Please answer the question. And here is another one:
> 
> In what way is, for example, your work on plugins, 
> or Diwaker's and Cyriaque work on the dispatcher diminished by acknowledging
> Thorsten's contribution?
> 
> The claim that pertinent acknowledgment of one fact some how diminishes 
> another is simply false! Both in general and in this particular case..
> 
> Each individual has contributed as time, talent and inclination permitted.
> Community is formed by everybody getting credit as it is due.
> If you don't recognize this try building community where involved parties
> take credit for contributions that are not theirs.

Way too much fuzz. ;) 

Still, the question remains what and why is (it) bad on stating
historical facts (milestones) for an open source community?

BTW remember I am very bad in adding someting to changes.xml. I forget
it all the time since in lenya we generate it from svn (which is so much
more comfortable) and if I do I add it to the wrong changes.xml.

> >
> > > If a person gives up the right to merit; why
> > > does he feel that another person should as well?
> >
> > A person is only expected to give up the concept of ownership. Merit
> > comes from community recognition, ad in a healthy community, comes
> > without asking for it. Thorsten has that recognition.
> 
> It is a legal fact that Thorsten gave up ownership by submitting the 
> code under the Apache License. So what "ownership" did Thorsten not give up 
> by implication or otherwise? You seem to have a peculiar connotation of 
> the word "ownership"! Even worse; you seem to feel that others should
> endorse your connotation of the word.

Way too much fuzz. ;) 

But I as well do not understand the relationship between ownership and
the word "inventor".

...and I never ask nor claimed merit for anything!

> 
> Please explain; what is your point exactly?
> 
> Your claim that Thorsten has the recognition of the community and that 
> it comes without asking is falsified by your endorsement of the patch removing
> the factually valid attribution to Thorsten I'm afraid.
> 

Way too much fuzz. 

Ross is right. I am PMC member and I have the official recognition. I do
not need any special treatment nor have I asked for it. I was not aware
about the "hidden" meaning of the word "inventor". ;)


> If something comes _without_ asking does it not come if it is asked?
> 

I never ask nor claimed anything!

> >
> > > Just about every Open Source project I know recognizes major
> > > contributors. Why not Forrest?
> >
> > I cannot think of a single advantage where an individual *takes* such
> > credit, only examples where it is *given* by the community as a whole.
> 
> Thorsten did not _take_ anything. Are you trying to imply that he did?
> Are you being fair to Thorsten?
> 
> I feel Thorsten is being treated unfairly; because Thorsten took nothing. 
> He simply stated a fact. Why do you seem to imply that Thorsten
> took something? What are you trying to achieve?
> Are trying to avoid transparency? 
> 

see the context we refer to the "small tiny little" word inventor. I
would never imagine what that caused. scary 


> When an athlete wins a gold medal at the Olympics he is allowed to state
> this as a matter of fact. Not true? 
> This does not mean that her coach did not help her,
> or that his parents did not support him. No, it is generally understood that
> no person is an island unto himself.
> 
> Thorsten did not take anything. He stated a fact. By, reverting the 
> attribution to his work you, by implication, have determined said attribution 
> to be out of place. So, stating pertinent fact is somehow out of place? 
> Interesting indeed!
> 

see the context we refer to the "small tiny little" word inventor. I
would never imagine what that caused. scary 

> >
> > Does Thorsten deserve such credit? Of course he does, and if you look in
> > the archives you will see it all over the place. But others also deserve
> > such credit.
> 
> Again, does the removal of Thorsten's words as to be found in the archives
> give an accurate impression of Thorsten and his contributions?
> 
> And, yes I do recognize that others deserve credit. 
> So why not give everyone the credit that they deserve?
> 
> Is it not simply: "Credit where credit is due?"

Like Ross says that is given by the different roles. As soon as I am
deserving it the apache members give me credits in making me ASF
member. 

I only can repeat I do not see "inventor" as credit and more, I do not
want to score any extra credits!

> 
> >
> > > In the period I lurked on this list Thorsten _gave_, in the nontrivial
> > > sense, possibly more than all others! Why is it that he should not _get_
> > > factual recognition of this?
> >
> > The key here is "in the period I lurked on this list", we must not
> > forget what happened before you started lurking. For example, 



> I did the
> > majority of the work on the plugin architecture, which made the
> > dispatcher possible. I also spent time adapting the plugin architecture
> > to support what Thorsten needed to do. My own work built on the skin
> > plugin system, (mostly contributed by Nicola Ken), which in turn was not
> > possible without the skinning system (mostly contributed by Stefano),
> > etc. etc.

Well, very nice more about our history and current situation. ;)

> 
> So what is your point? 
> In what way does acknowledging Thorsten's work diminish your
> contribution or Stefano's or David's?
> 
> Please, answer the question; preferably without trying to put words 
> into my mouth if you would be so kind.
> 
> >
> > Even the *concept* of the dispatcher was born from community discussion
> > and development. 

The concept was in my head a long time before and yes it was born here,
that makes me what? The mother or the farther of the dispatcher? ;)

> It has never been the output of one individual, and
> > this is becoming even more true as more developers find the time to
> > contribute to it. Of course, this discussion would never have happened
> > without the leadership of Thorsten, but then without the support of the
> > community would Thorsten have succeeded? I'm implying nothing, just
> > asking a rhetorical question that cannot be answered accurately.
> >
> > Finally, the core design pattern used in the dispatcher came from Sun,
> > not from Thorsten.
> 

well I tried but it is more my free interpretation of it. ;)

> I know that, because Thorsten _acknowledged_ the source of the design pattern.
> 
> So, are you now attempting to diminish Thorsten's contribution by pointing out 
> this fact Thorsten had allready disclosed? What relevance does the fact that 
> the pattern applied came from a third party have in the light of the removal 
> of the attribution to Thorstens contribution?
> 
> If you, by your reference to Sun, are not trying to diminish Thorsten's 
> work on the dispatcher; what are you trying to say by bringing up Sun as 
> the source of the pattern applied? 

waaaaaay tooooo muuuuchh fuuuuzzzzz!

> >
> > So, in summary, whilst Thorsten undoubtedly pulled all this together and
> > built the majority of the code, it is certainly not the "invention" of a
> > single individual.
> 
> Nothing ever is the invention of a single individual. So you state the 
> obvious. The person attributed as the inventor of something is
> usually the person who made it happen. With regards to the Dispatcher
> that person is Thorsten. 
> 
> Should Thorsten have stated that he contributed most 
> of the code, redesigned and reimplemented the dispatcher a few times, 
> in the presence of much wining I might add, and that the Dispatcher 
> was developed under his guidance?
> 
> News flash! That is what invention means nowadays.

lol


<snip/>

> >
> > [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy
> > [2] http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#roles
> 

<snip/>

> Kind regards,
> Maurice
> 

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)


Mime
View raw message