geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matt Hogstrom <>
Subject Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC
Date Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:35:58 GMT

Jason Dillon wrote:
>> I second your opinions, but that's how we operate and I can't do much
>> regarding this matter other than to spare some time and vote at least.
>> I think I'm not alone thinking that RTC is very painful, but some see
>> it as a remedy of our troublesome happenings in the past. We'll see
>> how it work out. The only thing I can do is to do my best to speed it
>> up a bit and be more active in RTCs (given my manager doesn't get me
>> swamped with other daily tasks that took me away for the past weeks).
>> Not mentioning there're lots of bugs reported.
> I think that if the Apache Geronimo community is actually self-governing 
> as I believed it was, then there is something that can be done about this.
> You are definitely not alone in thinking that RTC is painful (and 
> non-functional I would like to add).
>>> I'm confused now... how can one send a RTC w/o having a patch or
>>> patches for others to review?
>> Yes, you might've been confused as it's Matt's statement nor mine and
>> thus the origin of your confusion, isn't it?
> Honestly... I don't know... but I am confused ;-)

My point was that for very complicated changes like M1 -> M2 a note outlining the proposed
should not require a fully baked patch.  Perhaps I misstated.

>> I have never been as active in open source projects (Apache Geronimo
>> and OpenEJB in particular) as I should've been. I haven't been able to
>> manage my daily workload wisely and  spare more time to work on these
>> OSSes at nights. At this point I'm completely overwhelmed with other
>> stuff meaning I don't have as much time as is required from me to
>> contribute.
> It happens... which is why we have a community of developers to help 
> pick up the slack.  Unfortunately some decisions have been made which 
> limit the abilities of the bulk of the community and force the 
> minorities to play a much bigger part, which unfortunately most have not 
> stepped up to do.
Jason, RTC was implemented because the PMC chair and the Board felt that the G community was
functioning in an open fashion.  I don't want to repeat that whole debate as its been debated
nothing positive will come from rehashing it.

RTC has improved communications I think is achieving its desired effect.  Yes, the side effect
slowing down some development.  I know its frustrating but if we work well together through
process changes (RTC) we will be moving back to CTR.  Complaining about RTC won't get us there.

Yes, we're all frustrated and we all will get through this working together.

>> I see it as a threat to me being a PMC member. Do you
>> think I should step down having failed so often?
> Not at all.  I don't believe that you should step down at all.  You are 
> one of the few PMC folks that is actually trying to keep up with the RTC 
> and I certainly don't want to see those numbers reduced.
> As I mentioned before, I was not aiming my comments at anyone in 
> particular.  I have just been quietly ignoring the situation for 
> sometime, and feel that I can not do that anymore... it is not in my 
> nature.
I agree that Jacek is doing great.  Collectively we all make this work and all contributions
and small move us forward.
>> I remember having discussion about a distinction between a committer 
>> and PMC member. Some believed there's none.
> I'm not sure that there is (or should be) much difference.
>> It's not my decision to activate RTC, which as far as I understand has
>> never proven itself to be successful, but that's reality we need to 
>> live in.
> If our community is self-governing and the bulk of the community is in 
> opposition to this rule, why then does that community need to live with it?
See above about the Board and PMCs perspective of our community dynamics.
> BTW, that is my opinion... I have not performed any poll to see which 
> parts of our community actually is in favor of RTC.  I would suggest 
> that most folks agree that improved and more frequent communication is 
> desired... but I also suggest that RTC in its current incarnation is NOT 
> the best way to achieve those goals.
Its moved us back from where we were at.  Certainly past where we should be but I'm optimistic
we'll move back to the center.
>> I believe, though, that it won't kill the project, but strengthen.
> That all depends on how long it goes not for...
> IMO, the longer it does, the more chances are that the end-result will 
> be a more and more defunct community.
>  * * *
> Thanks for taking the time to respond.  I apologize if my comments stir 
> your frustration... but I felt and fell like I have to say something, to 
> play my part in this community.
> --jason

View raw message