geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Aaron Mulder <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: What hidden agenda?
Date Sun, 07 Nov 2004 19:01:13 GMT
On Sun, 7 Nov 2004, 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:
> 
>      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)

	Unfortunately, the above misses the key issue here, because we had
our conversation by voice, and the ASF document completely neglects that
("voice communication is extremely rare").  I think we could have gone
with IM, but there are times, particularly where there is much information
to cover or where people's feelings are involved, where electronic
communication isn't as appropriate.  For example, when we talked on the
phone, Jeremy was able to express his concerns quite clearly, and convey
the issues that I had either not thought of or not lent much weight to,
and we were able to disagree on the ideal outcome, while (by my
interpretation anyway) clearly maintaining a friendly,
let's-work-together-to-resolve-this even-if-your-position-makes-me-grouchy
sort of spirit.  The previous e-mail communication, however, seemed to
indicate that we were not at all on the same page, and it seemed (again to
me) like the electronic temperature was rising relatively rapidly.  So I
thought the conversation was 100% worth the time.

	I am definitely opposed to 2 things:

 1) Making critical decisions without input from others, offline

 2) Attempting to say that no one can talk about anything, offline

	The goal of the conversation Jeremy and I had was to crystalize 
the issues so we could have a more focused community discussion, and 
idenify a short-term path forward until the community discussion was 
resolved.

	I think part of the objection was that the "short term path 
forward" was misinterpreted by some members of the community.  Part of 
that was probably my fault.  It may have been most appropriate for me to 
commit nothing until the issue was resolved, instead of committing half 
the solution.  I guess some people thought that this was an instance of 
#1, where Jeremy talked me out of the other half of the solution, thereby 
circumventing the community consensus and making a critical decision 
offline.  In fact, I was just frustrated with keeping my pending changes 
in sync on several different computers, and I wanted to try to get 
some online features in before M3/ApacheCon.  I could have committed 
everything to a branch, but I didn't want to necessarily keep it all in 
once package when I knew half the package was going to be objectionable to 
at least some part of the community, and it seemed like I'd be better off 
committing that which I thought was universally agreeable and leaving the 
rest for more discussion later.

	Anyway, that about as much breath as I want to spend on the 
meta-issues.  All that said, I think we are now well-positioned to have a 
good discussion on the actual issues.

Aaron

Mime
View raw message