geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Davanum Srinivas" <>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:16:41 GMT

Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all issues
into the open and use this opportunity to vent, clear our heads and
hopefully help put our best foot forward from now on.


On 6/9/06, Alan D. Cabrera <> wrote:
> This is a private email so that I have things clear in my head.  If you
> think that it's useful to post to the dev group, that's cool.  You have
> my permission to forward this email on to whomever you'd like.
> Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 6/9/2006 3:03 PM:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > If you are again asking for my input here it is....It's plain and
> > simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much
> > as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space
> > constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby
> > one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC.
> How was Aaron's email [1] not a notification?  Is there a better way to
> provide notes on what one talked about at a conference?
> >
> > If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the
> > topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the
> > lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the "Notes from JavaOne"
> > [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing
> > both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could
> > have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who
> > followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne.
> You still have time to discuss.  What in [1] made you think that the
> notes were carved in stone?
> > Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an
> > agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team
> > either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we
> > call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the
> > items before hand and thrash out the rest in person.
> Yep.  That was a not too good.  But people can still discuss things even
> afterward, no?  People who have these private meetings run the risk of
> having to discuss the round if issues a second time if they are not
> inclusive.
> >
> > All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items
> > to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding
> > behind facade's like "oh, it was a vendor meeting" or "meeting
> > friends" or "We just left out just one person" or "Oh, There was a
> > BOF" or a thousand other excuses don't count.
> I think that what you see are individuals' interpretation of what the
> get-together was for themselves.  If everyone had the *exact* same story
> line then, that would have been truly suspicious.
> I gotta say.  I'm kinda scratching my head about this. I was at the
> meeting for the last few minutes but was an active participant in its
> formation and I think that it was handled "ok", not great, but "ok".
> Nothing was decided and things were reported back to the group.
> Now, compare this to the where actual code started going in
> and I got grief from fellow PMCers for even pointing it out.  I learned
> that this came about from a discussion at TSS and it was never
> publically reported to anyone.  This is what everyone should be craping
> their pants about.
> Bringing the two, to be sure there are others, together points out that
> Geronimo is in serious trouble.  Pointing out that single J1 meeting
> makes it seem kinda "shrill".
> Thoughts?
> > All you need to think
> > about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the
> > project or not. By "bring the community together", hope you don't mean
> > that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two
> > from the strong actions by the pmc chair.
> >
> > Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it!!!!!!!!
> +1
> >
> > [1]
> > [2]
> I am not disagreeing that Geronimo is in serious trouble.  I totally
> agree with you.
> Regards,
> Alan

Davanum Srinivas :

View raw message