geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:28:42 GMT
I have entered my own comments below...

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>> Aaron,
>> Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow
>> anyone that you have sent a private
>> e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other
>> posts on this thread.  I think
>> that will help.
> Sure.
>> Second, the which was injected into Geronimo is
>> probably a good place to start.
>>   Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address
>> specific information.
>> Registrant:
>>     Address is provided *Removed*
>>        Created on: 11-Apr-06
>>        Expires on: 11-Apr-07
>>        Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06
>>     Administrative Contact:
>>        Mulder, Erin
>>     Technical Contact:
>>        Mulder, Erin
> Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one,
> and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue).  I've offered a
> number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and
> so far, no one's taken me up on it.  My goals are to provide a Maven
> repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL,
> proprietary.  Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious
> enoguh to provide one.  And now you're jumping on her for it?  That's
> gratitude!
> Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories
> is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available
> sites away from at any time.
> What is your counter-proposal?

I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me.  This has
nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue.  The point
here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have
been involved in.  Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone
talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred.

This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the
Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up
into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from
others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.  Although
nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would
have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the
example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some
discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its more of a
ethical and respect issue, IMHO.

As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant
discussion with others before taking action.

Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit.

>> Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed
>> that specifically excluded
>> members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to
>> the list if you like.  Given
>> that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are
>> somewhat culpable but given that
>> you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to
>> have that discussion in the open
>> as well.
> Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few
> other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about
> so long as we were all together.  I'm sorry that there's a perception
> of an exclusionary wall.  It was on us to pay for the food, which at
> hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't
> able to invite the entire Geronimo community.  I apologize to everyone
> in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't
> invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get
> together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the
> discussion points to the mailing list.  If you objected, why am I
> first hearing about it now?

I attended for a total of about an hour.  I am speaking from hearsay
here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed?  I was told
by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting.

> And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do?  If
> it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer,
> and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should
> happen?  If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or
> phone calls discussing Geronimo issues?  Or are you going to provide
> an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of
> the night for the convenience of the Asian community?
> I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> was.

This in-and-of-itself is the issue.  Knowing Geir was in town, and
especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a
speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time
understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event.  JavaOne
is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all
should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings
(positive or negative) about each other.  For those who could not
attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged.  This should have
been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed
not everyone was there.

We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our
dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and
Geronimo.  We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.

>> In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list
>> allowing folks to paste their private
>> notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your
>> request.  I'm happy to oblige.
> ???  I sense you have a major issue with some e-mail I've sent, though
> in all honesty, I don't know what it is.  Did I say that IBM has a
> secret plan to rule the world?  (Don't you? :)  In any case, be my
> guest.

I have received emails from you Aaron that were

> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
>> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
>> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
>> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
>> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
>> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
>> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> > move forward.
>> >
>> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
>> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
>> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
>> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
>> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
>> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
>> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
>> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
>> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> > try something different for the release after.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No
>> one can
>> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
>> there.  And
>> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
>> (i.e., a
>> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
>> help on
>> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
>> volunteer
>> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> > immensely.
>> >>
>> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
>> things
>> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
>> group
>> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >>
>> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
>> panacea.
>> >>
>> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
>> expect
>> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
>> determining
>> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
>> difficult.
>> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bruce
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >

View raw message