forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thorsten Scherler <>
Subject Re: Community health
Date Sat, 18 Mar 2006 11:24:29 GMT
El sáb, 18-03-2006 a las 14:59 +1100, David Crossley escribió: 
> I waited for some days to see if others would attempt
> to answer this. No-one has, so i will try.
> Ross Gardler wrote:
> > I wrote a long and details reply to this, but have decided not to post
> > it. The issue is too volatile and has the makings of an argument rather
> > than a discussion. Maurice has made some very valuable observations,
> > along with some misunderstanding of my intent.
> Me too. Lets try to follow your new approach to
> sort it out.
> > Let me try and be clear about the "inventor" tagline:
> > 
> > I have an issue with any claim of ownership of ASF code, not with the
> > recognition of contributions.
> > 
> > I am a strong believer in the meritocracy of the ASF and how it awards
> > credit to individuals.
> > 
> > A claim of being the "inventor" of community code implies ownership. I
> > do not believe this was the intent of the original commit message, only
> > an unfortunate side effect of that particular word. Thorsten has been
> > around the ASF long enough to know how it works.
> > 
> > For the record I'm happy with Tims observations, as is Thorsten. Since
> > this specific instance only concerns Thorsten that can be the end of it,
> > I hope.
> >
> > However, there are more general community issues here as well, and I
> > would like to look at them. Here are three community observations (and
> > as far as I am concerned the really important part of this):
> >
> > 1) Some people seem to feel that the normal ASF meritocracy is not
> > sufficient credit within Forrest. Why should Forrest be different from
> > other ASF projects? Do we need to do something different?

Hmm, what is your definition of normal?

I assume then that
are not normal? 

If not, should we not then bring this up either in a broader audience or
in this projects directly?

If it is normal, then why should Forrest be different from other ASF

> I reckon that we don't need to change anything that
> we are currently doing. If someone feels that we do,
> then they need to make an explicit proposal.

Did you not read my words and Tims about live-site?

Do you think we should write them again?

> There are some things that we do need to do better.
> Better use of changes.html (often we forget to
> add entries). Get better at noticing new committed
> people.

Well, how do you want to do that?

> > 2) We see occasional mails that seem to imply "hidden agendas" on the
> > part of others, yet never say anything directly. This is extremely
> > damaging to our community. If someone has a genuine concern it should be
> > raised in the open (or the semi-open of the PMC list if more appropriate).
> I can only recall two occasions and those concerns
> were quickly dispelled. Yes we need to do as you
> suggest if ever they arise again.

Well, I reckon in all communities there will occasionally such mails and 
like David said we all have to dispell them quickly. 

> > 3) For a while now this community has had periodic eruptions. Why is
> > this happening? Is it related to the above observations, or is there
> > something else?
> I reckon that it is due to something else.
> We are still attempting to define our project
> guidelines. This requires us to investigate some
> delicate issues. We don't see this on other
> projects such as Apache Cocoon, perhaps because
> they (we) have not yet managed to make a start
> on that obligation.
> Also i wonder if other projects do not talk much
> about community issues, even though that is supposed
> to be a big part of managing an ASF project.

Well, I have made the experience in other ml that communities issues are 
somehow handled different and talking about it will as well produce such

> Sometimes those discussions go astray. I believe
> this occurs when someone has mis-interpreted another's
> comments and intent, or perhaps said something like
> "Joe said such-and-such" when that is not at all
> what Joe meant.
> Another reason for the eruptions is that some
> people seem to get defensive, thinking that comments
> are directed at individuals.
> The sooner that we get these guidelines finished
> the better. I am going to add some more to
> to try to explain the "Apache Way" as it applies
> to our project and how we recognise contributions.
> Hopefully others can help to build upon that
> to reflect our intent.

The only problem I see is that it will be the "Apache Forrest Way" 
as long it does not go back to the Apache main page. Further it will let other
Apache projects define the "Apache XYZ Way", I see more danger then benefits in this.

I think we rather have to address a bigger audience with our concerns.


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

View raw message