From dev-return-10077-apmail-geronimo-dev-archive=geronimo.apache.org@geronimo.apache.org Mon Nov 08 20:49:28 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 59480 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2004 20:49:28 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 8 Nov 2004 20:49:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 12767 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2004 20:48:55 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 12700 invoked by uid 500); 8 Nov 2004 20:48:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 12676 invoked by uid 99); 8 Nov 2004 20:48:55 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [66.250.40.202] (HELO saturn.opentools.org) (66.250.40.202) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Nov 2004 12:48:54 -0800 Received: by saturn.opentools.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id EC4C93EC2; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:53:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by saturn.opentools.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E527BF5CF for ; Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:53:34 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:53:34 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mulder X-X-Sender: ammulder@saturn.opentools.org To: dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: What hidden agenda? In-Reply-To: <286E5FAA-31C6-11D9-915F-000D93331A8C@gluecode.com> Message-ID: References: <418E565F.4070107@apache.org> <418E679E.5040408@frii.com> <164762D2-30F4-11D9-8B4D-000A95D41A40@apache.org> <89CD18A1-3189-11D9-BD46-000393D76AB8@jaguNET.com> <418FB9DC.9050807@apache.org> <286E5FAA-31C6-11D9-915F-000D93331A8C@gluecode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 > >