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 Sat, 11 Mar 2006 13:30:21 GMT
Hi Thorsten,

Thank you for clarifying your position. 

> 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. ;)

I too speak different languages and I'm not sure this is always an advantage 
when communicating with others. Words mean different things to different 
people in different situations. Even more so when people speak different 
languages, I think.

> 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. ;)

Yes, indeed. Recognizing that words usually mean different things to different 
people causes me to think it is best to tolerate words and wordings 
which might not be your own. Changing somebodies natural 
wording without agreement is very likely to offend *somebody*.

> 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!

This is my worry as well. IMO changing your words gives a wrong and unfair 
impression of you. I feel such subtleties need to be appreciated 
before replacing one wording with another, especially when it is done without 

> 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.

This has been my experience while lurking on the Cocoon lists for example.
I distinctly recall seeing essentially the same claim (but much more broad) 
you made, being made by a long-standing Apache person in an RT a 
while back, and no one seemed to take issue.

For this and similar reasons I feel that the revertion was not much about 
Apache policy. It might however be about Forrest policy taking shape
as David pointed out.

Like you said the question still remains why such credit does not harm, for 
example, the healthy Cocoon community but by some magical means 
would be "bad" for the Forrest community. 

It remains beyond me. 

The same thing happens in many open source projects I know about and
their communities are not harmed either.

> ...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. ;)

I won't try to predict the future. since I don't like eating my words :-).

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

Yes, the question still remains. There have been no substantated answers 
provided. Only personal preferences and convictions. 

I take issue when it is my perception that personal preference and 
convictions gets sold as "official" policy. This caused the fuzz
you referred to a few times in your reply :-)

All claims that, maintaining historical facts are magically "bad", that I have 
seen provided in this thread are unsubstantiated postulations.

> >
> > News flash! That is what invention means nowadays.
> lol
> salu2

In conclusion I wish to say that I admire your think-skinnedness. I'll try to 
take example from it.

Kind regards,

No pare, sigue, sigue

View raw message