geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rodent of Unusual Size <Ken.C...@Golux.Com>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Tue, 13 Jun 2006 00:19:37 GMT
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Dims,
> 
> Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful 
> message.

Perhaps -- and evidently -- not useful to you, but it appears
that others have caught on.

> (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago?  I don't know --
> you have made the first announcement of this just today. What's the
> message?)

'Why': because it was evident that some of the PMC members
were experiencing serious conflicts of interest, and it
appeared that they were being resolved to the project's
detriment.
'The message': No particular message; their project responsibilities
shouldn't have to complete unfavourably with their work or
personal desires, and now don't.

> You in your e-mail right here have said what you though went wrong
> and how you think it could be corrected in the future.  One of my
> biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair is that they have
> done neither.

Untrue.  There were extended discussions in the PMC.  You
voluntarily resigned from the PMC, and wouldn't reconsider
even when I explicitly asked you.  That you have thereby
deprived yourself of a source of information and excluded
yourself from some project-related meta-discussions is a
condition you have chosen.  To more directly address
your remark: just because you are unaware of a fact does not
make it nonexistent.

> In conversation with the PMC chair I practically begged him to tell
> me I had done something wrong WRT the JavaOne meeting and what should
> be done differently next time.  He declined.

Let me quote some of the exchanges, interspersed from the
back-and-forth thread:

=======

Aaron wrote:
> What's the point of posting the invitation to the dev list?

I responded:
> I asked you to post the invitation because there is some confusion
> about it, and seeing the actual message would clear that up.

Aaron wrote:
> I'm especially confused by the implication that any development has 
> been done in private.  What development is that?

I responded:
> That's part of the confusion surrounding the invitation.

Aaron wrote:
> On whose part?

I responded:
> Primarily on the part of people who heard about it but weren't
> included even though they're on the project, and others who heard
> about it who *aren't* on the project.

Aaron wrote:
> Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how?

I responded:
> People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they
> feel comfortable.  It's not for me to reveal their information; they
> can do so themselves on the dev list.  If they feel comfortable doing
> so.

Aaron wrote:
> And why is there concern over a gathering of friends at a conference?
> 
I responded:
> Because there are concerns that it was rather more than that.  For
> one thing, you don't typically get corporate sponsors for 'gatherings
> of friends.'  And people charged with oversight of an open project
> have to be sensitive to what they do that relates to the project.

Aaron wrote:
> It should be pretty clear from the invitation there was no secret 
> development nor intimidation of non-invited project members.

[*** Note that it certainly couldn't be clear, one way or the other,
  to anyone who hadn't *seen* the invitation; hence the desire to
  make it available to people so they could draw their own
  conclusions from it about any concerns they might have had.]

I responded:
> The Monday meeting and the development model change are separate
> issues.  The 'intimidation' aspect has nothing to do with the
> invitation.  The 'secret development' aspect comes in when some
> committers are invited to participate and others are deliberately
> excluded.

Aaron wrote:
> Further, since you have not shared any specific concerns regarding
> intimidation or secret development with me, I'm going to assume there
> are none that are pertinent to me.  Not trying to be a jerk here, but
> no wrongdoing has been pointed out to me, so my plan is to not lose
> sleep over what didn't happen.

I responded:
> That's cool.

[*** Note that this is an unsatisfactory end to this issue;
  I said I wasn't going to name names, and Aaron said he was
  going to regard that as meaning he wasn't involved.  Not
  necessarily a valid conclusion to draw.]

=======

> I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any kind that
> he thought needed to be changed.  He declined.  I think the message
> you provided below "If I had known about the meeting I would have
> done this...  What Apache projects usually do is this...  All it 
> would have taken was this..." was extremely useful.  Please, please 
> encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future.

That approach has been taken, but you seem unwilling to
acknowledge it.  The message is: Apache Geronimo is a
collaborative effort.  Committers are peers.  Cliques
are inappropriate, as are significant changes made
unilaterally and without community input.

Is that message sufficiently clear?
-- 
#ken	P-|}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Mime
View raw message