geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Aaron Mulder" <>
Subject Re: [RTC] Clarification please from the PMC
Date Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:17:10 GMT
I'd like to +1 this, but I'm too scared to due to the political ramifications.

Yesterday, a PMC member told me that the only thing he could compare
Gernimo to was Avalon, where certain personalities were so destructive
that someone was kicked out of Apache altogether.

You do the math.


On 6/29/06, Jason Dillon <> wrote:
> NOTE: My comments below are not directed towards anyone in
> particular... mostly this just expresses my frustration with some of
> the more harmful politics that Apache Geronimo has picked up over the
> past few months...
> > Although RTC has slowed down development a bit (or even more), it
> > will pay off very
> > soon.
> I think "slowed down development a bit (or even more)" is an
> understatement.  I believe that RTC has the development team running
> through molasses.  And in some cases has caused some patches and
> issues to get stuck in the tar.  Not really the types of things you
> want from a vibrant, active and positive community.
> > We need to be very patient until more committers become PMC
> > members and their votes are binding.
> This will not remedy the fact that RTC rules dictate that patches
> must be applied and tested before a +1 can be given, which normally
> would have happened once when the *trusted* developer has applied the
> patch.  But now we need a gang of people to apply the patch, which
> usually means dropping any other work they were doing to get a clean
> tree and then apply the patch, pray that the build succeeds in a
> reasonable amount of time, running through a test case or two and
> then blowing it all away to get back to the work that they were
> actually doing before.
> I fail to see how this will increase anything but frustration of
> developers to have to jump through those hoops to get changes
> made.... maybe it will increase communication about how frustrating
> RTC is though ;-)
> > Painful, but in the end it might boost development significantly.
> How will this boost anything?
> > AFAIUI, the whole point of RTC is to ensure communication through
> > dev/user mailing lists rather than in closed circles.
> I don't understand how, dropping what I am working on, applying
> patches, running tests and then coaxing the few PMC members with
> votes will ensure more communication.  In may respects I think it
> actually hinders communication, as people will just shy away from
> applying changes or from proposing to make new changes.  RTC, IMO is
> the road to complacency.
> >> It would seem to me that the process for RTC would be to send an
> >> RTC about the Maven 1 -> 2
> >> conversion with some preliminary ideas.
> I'm confused now... how can one send a RTC w/o having a patch or
> patches for others to review?
>   * * *
> RTC is crippling Apache Geronimo's ability to become a vibrant player
> in the app-server space.  RTC has made us a Red Tape Community, where
> it takes weeks to get trivial changes implemented.
> The problem is made worse by the fact that most of the PMC members
> who we are supposed to coax into following RTC and voting in the
> changes are simply not available.  Not all of them mind you, but out
> of 10 PMC members I can only think of a few who have had time or
> desire to participate in the RTC and actually give their binding
> votes.  IMO the only way that RTC could possibly with is if the PMC
> members drop anything else they are working on and devote their time
> to applying patches, building and testing... BUT, I don't see that
> happening.  The people who are actually doing the work are for the
> most part not PMC members.  The people who are actually applying
> these patches are not PMC members.  Lucky enough though, I think that
> there are at least 3 PMC members who are being active, so there is a
> shot for us to get work done... its just going to be really slow
> moving.  At this rate, maybe we will have EJB3 support out by the
> time that EJB4 is dominant... or get out build working on m2 by the
> time m3 is out...
> :-\
> --jason

View raw message