geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <fer...@frii.com>
Subject Re: What hidden agenda?
Date Sun, 07 Nov 2004 18:21:18 GMT
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> Last Thursday, Aaron Mulder and I had a heated but healthy technical
> discussion on this list about the implementation of certain features in
> the new deployer. It became clear to both of us that continuing to use
> email was getting unproductive and Aaron pinged me on IM to see if we
> could discuss them directly.
> 
> We had a very productive hour-long discussion, clarified areas where we
> agreed and where we both saw issues, and came to consensus on how to
> proceed. Aaron summarized this to the list here:
> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9712

> 
> 
> which basically says he was going to commit his new stuff for online
> deployment and offline packaging. He also inquired here:
> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9713

> 
> 
> about how to create a experimental branch which he planned to use to
> check in the code for the areas that had issues that still needed to be
> resolved so that the entire community could see them and discuss.
> 
> At the same time I promised to email the list a detailed description of
> the issues as I saw them. I told Aaron that this would take a couple of
> days and that things were really busy at work (for the record my company
> was in crunch mode getting a release done).
> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9721

> 
> 
> The response to this by two members of the community was bitter and
> personal, almost indicative of paranoid delusion. In a stream of
> vitriolic email mostly with other community members I have been accused
> that my behaviour is not in the "Apache Way", of trying to create a
> "back channel", of not directing opinion to the list, of not fulfilling
> my obligation to vote, and had my motivations treated with suspicion.
> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9714

> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9717

> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9718

> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9727

> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9743

> 
> 
> This is neither healthy nor technical. This behaviour is harmful to the 
> reputation and perception of this community and this project. It will 
> not be condoned.
> 
> My promised description of the issues I saw has been sent to the list
> and is available at
> 
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg?listName=dev@geronimo.apache.org&msgNo=9851

> 
> 
> Let us civily seek consensus and get this behind us.

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:

     http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management

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)

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

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.

These are simple administrative issues that can be easily solved. Let's 
not let these small items divide us.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print 
unpack("u30","<0G)U8V4\\@4VYY9&5R\\"F9E<G)E=\\$\\!F<FEI+F-O;0\\`\\`");'

The Castor Project
http://www.castor.org/

Apache Geronimo
http://geronimo.apache.org/

Mime
View raw message