geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeff Genender <>
Subject Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC
Date Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:55:00 GMT

Jason Dillon wrote:
> Guys, I feel like I am allowed to state my opinions.
> I am not complaining (and a bit insulted that you think I am), but I
> believe that RTC is harmful for a few reasons.
> I also feel like some responses to mails I have sent are basically that
> I should shut-up (my words), which I do not appreciate.

Of course you have a right to speak your opinions, and they are
welcomed. The key really becomes how constructive they are.  Clearly RTC
is a PITA.  But it also was heavily needed to right ourselves from a
collaboration and communication perspective.  IMHO, I think it has been
successful, and once we have shown that we are working together better
as a team, I am sure we will be able to move back to CTS.

> :-(
> --jason
> On Jun 30, 2006, at 5:35 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> 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 action 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 not functioning in an open fashion.  I don't
>> want to repeat that whole debate as its been debated and nothing
>> positive will come from rehashing it.
>> RTC has improved communications I think is achieving its desired
>> effect.  Yes, the side effect is slowing down some development.  I
>> know its frustrating but if we work well together through the 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 great 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 that 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