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 Wed, 14 Jun 2006 22:32:27 GMT

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?

I think Matt was trying to make a point.

I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
each other.

Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "" in the
server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
just me.

To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer,
Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort
without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
exploited...again maybe that's just me.

I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.

That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
had to offer up why it bothers me.

Thats my penny's worth ;-)


> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
>> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
>> at that one.  Let's be
>> consistent in our interpretations.
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was
>> going
>> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
>> >
>> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
>> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
>> > beating a dead horse here...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bruce
>> >
>> >
>> >

View raw message