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 Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:53:34 GMT
	Christ, I'm going to buy each and every one of you a beer at
ApacheCon (you too Jim), and then you will each shut up and forget about
this.  Deal?

Aaron

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004, David Blevins wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2004, at 12:24 PM, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
> 
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >> Within the ASF, the use of the development mailing list is *the* 
> >> method
> >> of development discussion. That's the reason for it.
> >> Wikis are good for "after the fact" documentation.
> >> IRC is good when a small subset of developers need to
> >> get together quickly to talk about some aspects of
> >> development, but it should quickly and completely
> >> migrate to email after the "pressing" matters have
> >> been dealt with. Same with thinks like "meetings
> >> over beer" and stuff like that. The reason, of
> >> course, should be obvious: it excludes by its very
> >> nature other developers. And you can't have collaborative
> >> development when that happens.
> >> Also, in-the-open development via Email makes it easy
> >> to prevent such claims as "back door" activity. How can it
> >> be back door when it's openly discussed in the primary
> >> development scheme?
> >> In general, however, such things as "we discussed this
> >> on IRC and we decided to do this and we'll post a
> >> summary on Email when we can" is never a good idea,
> >> and can result in kindly words that "development is always
> >> done on the mailing list" to fiery words that "people are
> >> trying to have their cake and eat it too by riding on
> >> the ASF name without adhering to its standard practices."
> >> This is an issue that every ASF project has had to deal with
> >> in one way or another.
> >
> > I think you are missing the true issue here.
> >
> > The off-list discussion between Aaron and myself came about because it 
> > was pretty darn clear that we were not effectively communicating our 
> > thoughts in email and that the thread was disintegrating into dispute. 
> > Rather than indulge in a flame fest we took action to help reach 
> > consensus in the community. The intent and outcome of the off-list 
> > discussion was a plan on how to get back to a reasonable discussion 
> > *on the list* - no technical decisions were made.
> >
> > The bitter and personal attack that came as a response to this 
> > achieves the exact opposite of what you desire as it encourages people 
> > to keep quiet about such discussions; for, like it or not, such 
> > discussions will happen (ApacheCon anyone?).
> >
> > But it is more than that. Speculative allegations seed FUD about the 
> > project and are, in my opinion, deleterious to the project and 
> > community. We should not encourage or condone such behaviour.
> >
> > You had two individuals here trying to resolve a technical difference 
> > by discussing between themselves how to coherently present the issue 
> > to the community so all could be involved. This is a good thing.
> >
> > You had two individuals flame them for doing so with accusations of a 
> > hidden agenda. This is a bad thing. Talk of cake and coat-tails simply 
> > promulgates that meme.
> 
> Don't throw me into that category.  My exact words were, "Motivations, 
> diffusing, back channels....  Can we turn this back into a technical 
> discussion?"
> 
> -David
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message