geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bruce Snyder <>
Subject Re: What hidden agenda?
Date Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:39:46 GMT
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> 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 b).
> 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.

I agree with everything you've said, Geir. My suggestion was that others 
wanted to be part of the actual discussion, not an after-the-fact 
summary of the the discussion. I think some people view such a summary 
as exclusion.

>> 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.

perl -e 'print 

The Castor Project

Apache Geronimo

View raw message