geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <ammul...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:14:28 GMT
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <hiram@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>
> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> mind, would you?

Of course not.

> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?

You are not wrong.

It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for
providing a solution that the project needs.  I am utterly baffled by
why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a
charity effort.  And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how
putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying
that my contributions outweight anybody else's.  Finally, it's not at
all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap.

Jeff, I must be stupid.  Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm
immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my
contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to
reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository.

Thanks,
   Aaron

> On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jgenender@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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 "virtuas.com" 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 ;-)
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> > >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
> > >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> > >> 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 <jgenender@apache.org> 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
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>

Mime
View raw message