geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr. <>
Subject Re: What hidden agenda?
Date Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:34:48 GMT

On Nov 7, 2004, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
> Per these disagreements, I think that we should address them before we 
> move on simply because I don't want to be bitten by these same issues 
> again. I suggest that we learn from this issue and set forth some 
> guidelines for the future.
> As for the discussion being taken offline, ASF project management and 
> collaboration within the ASF is clearly spelled out here:
> and sets forth a rule that email will be the communication medium of 
> choice, but also allows for IRC and IM. I suggest that we either:
>     a) only use the email lists for dicussions
>     b) use email and IRC for discussions (and post IRC server logs)
>     c) use email, IRC and IM for dicussions (and post IRC and IM logs)

This doesn't mean that you can't talk to humans when you need to go 
faster, need to be sure that they understand you, or just happen to be 
physically near them.  IMO, fostering inter-human communication is 
*good* for the project, as we get to know each other as people.  That 
can help strengthen the community.

In the case of Aaron and Jeremy, I think it did.  They felt comfortable 
enough to just talk.  They came back to the list telling people they 
had a chat, and that the result was that Aaron wasn't convinced 
(showing that no nefarious secret plans were hatched), and Jeremy 
promised to explain fully when he gets time.  I don't see any downside.

> Jeremy clearly stated that he would post a summary of the discussion 
> but others disgreed (wanting to be part of the discussion, I gather).

And they are part of it - it's all being done on the list, isn't it?  
We can't keep people from talking - in fact, I think that it's bad if 
we do.  Dain and David sit next to each other, physically.  Can they 
not talk about Geronimo?  The fact is that they do, and I don't think 
anyone has a problem with it.  So why have a problem w/ Aaron and 
Jeremy talking?

> The summary after the fact still allows for comment, but disallows 
> being part of the actual discussion. It seems that this is another 
> point where we should agree on a guideline for the future. I suggest 
> that we either:
>     a) allow offline discussions with a summary after the fact
>     b) disallow offline discussions with a summary after the fact

You can't stop a), and you can't enforce b).  We'd have to scrap 
anything we are going to do at ApacheCon, for example, if we adopted 

a) is our de-facto operating mode.  We may have to *gently* remind each 
other to bring things to the list when we're approaching a decision, or 
have some difference of opinion, but I think we don't really have a big 
problem with this.

> These are small issues yet they wield considerable affect on the 
> progress of the project. Setting forth some guidelines now can 
> potentially save us loads of time in the future.
> In addition, I propose that future calls for votes only be sent out 
> only after a discussion has taken place surrounding said issue. I feel 
> that some of the calls for vote have occurred too early in the 
> deliberation of an issue.

Yes.  Agreed.


Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437

View raw message