forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Maurice Gittens <>
Subject Re: Forrest history (was Re: svn commit: r384121)
Date Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:00:52 GMT
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.

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. 

> > 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.
> > 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?

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

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

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. 

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.

> > 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

> > 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.

> > 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.

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.

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

> > 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? 

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!

> 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?"

> > 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.

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. 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.

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? 

> 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.

> Now, we could go down a whole route of discussing at which point history
> credits someone as *the* inventor. However, I do not believe that, it is
> part of our role to decide such things. It is the role of the historians
> who come after us.

IMO, you are free to believe as you choose. Do you think it
appropriate to unfairly impose your personal faith on the 

> As Tim pointed out, they will have a wealth of information to work on,
> should anyone be interested. If they ever ask me to name the key figure
> in the dispatcher development there are two people I would name,
> Thorsten as the key architect and developer and Cyriaque who built the
> first usable theme and started making the code accessible to the rest of
> us. The community will be in there as the third key contributor.

So, If you really feel this way; Why do you endorse the patch removing 
Thorsten's attribution? This seems pretty inconsistent to me!
Can you explain? Why the ambivalence?

> (not that I think Forrest is important enough to attract such historians)
> > I understand that Forrest is your project governed by your rules.
> > My contribution and the purpose of this mail is only to point out that
> > certain developers avoid projects which deny merit to those deserving it.
> Thorsten is a committer and PMC member in this project. That is how ASF
> projects recognise contributions and "apply" merit, see [1] and [2].
> Furthermore, nobody is saying that the dispatcher would have appeared
> without Thorsten, only that the dispatcher would not appear without the
> community.
> This is what distinguishes a community led development from a code or
> individual led development.
> > Please view this email as no more than an opinion of such a developer.
> > I hope that Forrest does not loose many contributors as a consequence
> > of this policy.
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. There are many views on
> how Open Source should work. There are many people, like you, who do not
> accept that the ASF approach is the best, perhaps you are one of those
> people.

Please do not put words in my mouth. I never made any statement about  the
ASF or the approach of the ASF. Why do you feel it is your right to not only 
falsely imply that I did but also to claim that I don't accept that the ASF 
approach is the best? What gives you the right to judge me in this way?

I'm sorry. But since you feel the need to put words into my mouth; do I have a 
choice but to mildly point out your tactics? You put words into my mouth so 
that it becomes easier to defend your position? Bravo!

I can quote David saying: 
"I also disagree with Stefano saying that he invented Cocoon and Forrest."

By making in essence the same claim of Thorsten, does Stefono also not 
know the Apache way according to you? 

I can quote David again saying:
"Thorsten, don't take any of this personally. We are still a new project and 
need to set our direction. As before i am using real-life situations to mould 

By suggesting, that Forrest is still a new project needing to set direction in
this regard, obviously, this matter has not been hashed out very well. 
At least not according to David.
Does David not know the Apache way according to you?

Since, Thorsten committed the introduction to his personal site,
the removal of which you endorsed; does this mean according to
you that Thorsten does not know the Apache way either?

Now, you seem to try to pull rank on me by claiming to the representation of 
the "Apache way" in this discussion?

Please; I challenge you to point out where I have implied in any 
way that I do not endorse the Apache way!
So why do you feel it is appropriate to claim that I do not endorse the Apache 
way? Why do you feel the need to detract from the subject of this thread
by bringing up points not relevant to this thread?

Please be aware that such action makes you look like someone with exterior 

Hmmm, Is Ross trying to get away with having the "Ross way" substituted 
for the Apache way? If not; why are you, for the second time in a single 
reply, trying to put words into my mouth? 

Is Ross's view of the Apache way somehow more binding than that of David, 
Thorsten or Stefano?


> Personally, I think that a focus on community is critical to a
> successful Open Source project. Claims of credit, over and above the
> community are, in my opinion, damaging to that community.
> Ross
> [1]
> [2]

My, reading of these links do not endorse your position. 

Folks we need to understand that anything less than:
"Credit where credit is due" simply will not fly. 

Kind regards,

No pare, sigue, sigue

View raw message