httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dean Gaudet <dgau...@arctic.org>
Subject survey results so far
Date Tue, 07 Apr 1998 23:59:02 GMT
Ok here's the responses I got so far.  If I missed anyone's just tell me,
it wasn't deliberate.  The first message was cc'd to a local "chatter" 
mailing list and generated a bunch of traffic in my mailbox with the same
subject... and I had to filter it out. 

Yup it's a biased survey.  But it's still nice to hear from everyone else. 

Dean

---------- Forwarded message ----------

10) Do you think that Dean is an asshole?
   (a) dunno him personally, but he certainly seems that way from volumes
of email
   (b) he's a really nice, wonderful guy (irl at least)
   (c) hangin's too good fer 'im, burnin's too good fer 'im


---------- Forwarded message ----------

1) Do you feel that the Apache group is behaving like:
  (a) pre-teens

2) Are you happy using a product which is clearly managed by bumbling fools
   that can't make any decisions?

  (c) yes, it still is a cool webserver (and I have the source code...)

3) Oh hey, do you want to vote for the two naming proposals?

  (c) Why mess with it now and hold up 1.3 when it is clear all it will all
be redone for 2.0 anyway?

4) Do you feel that watching Apache make a decision is a lot like watching
   government try to accomplish anything?
   (a) yes

5) Do you think that the development guidelines
   <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines> are a sign of a
   dysfunctional group who can't trust each other?
   (b) no
   It is important to have guidelines.  They key word, however, is
"guidelines"... Not laws.

6) (essay) Compare and contrast the terms "democracy" and "meritocracy".

   I thought this was a multiple choice exam!!

7) (essay) Do you have any suggestions as to how improve the Apache
   development process?
   Stop the bickering and finish 1.3.  I watched Ralf take a lot of $hit
from the group for wanting to commit APACI because everything was supposed
to be frozen.  Now ya'll want to change every function name?  Interesting.

8) Would you like to start working on Apache 2.0?
   (a) Yes I think that would be cool.
   The NSPR looks like it could solve a lot of problems...






---------- Forwarded message ----------

On Tue, Apr 07, 1998 at 12:57:34PM -0700, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> Hi there lurkers, and folks just not interested in saying a thing during
> these Holy Naming Wars.  I'd like your input.  I hope you're still there. 

Recently rejoined after a while away. Now regretting rejoining :-)

> Send it to me privately if you want, and I will strip your names and
> forward the results to the list.  Here's a little questionaire. 
> 
> Dean
> 
> 1) Do you feel that the Apache group is behaving like:
>   (a) pre-teens

Yeah. Specificaly Jim and Roy's attitudes are, let's say, unproductive.
But then, that isn't new.

>   (b) rebellious teenagers
>   (c) young ideallistic adults
>   (d) mature adults
>   (e) idiots
> 
> 2) Are you happy using a product which is clearly managed by bumbling fools
>    that can't make any decisions?
>   (a) yes, it still is a cool webserver
>   (b) no, no matter how cool it is

a, though I think it's stagnating. The "free" part is becoming more
and more the only attraction.

the fact they can't make decisions is not that bad -- if they were
able to make decision they still might not make the right ones :-)

> 3) Oh hey, do you want to vote for the two naming proposals?
>   (a) I believe that documentation is the place to define the API, and I
>       really just want a solution to the name space collision issues, so I
>       would like everything to be prefixed ap_.  I recognize that this is
>       a time-honoured solution, even ANSI and POSIX use this technique,
>       a leading _ is protected namespace, but by no means does it mean that
>       the function/keyword is private.
> 
>   (b) I believe that we should spend a bunch of effort right now deciding
>       what is part of the API, and what isn't, and what won't ever be part
>       of the API, and we should include this information as documentation
>       in the symbols.  I clearly don't believe that documentation is
>       sufficient.

If I thought Apache 2.0 would actually happen, then a). Given that I
doubt that within any reseonable timeframe, b).

> 5) Do you think that the development guidelines
>    <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines> are a sign of a
>    dysfunctional group who can't trust each other?
>    (a) yes
>    (b) no

yes
 
> 6) (essay) Compare and contrast the terms "democracy" and "meritocracy".

what, and waste more time on process?
 
> 7) (essay) Do you have any suggestions as to how improve the Apache
>    development process?

Brian needs to win the lottery, then fund the code-producing members
(count number of recent patches?) to sit in a cabin in Tahoe with a
bunch of hardware, and hammer out an apache 2.0 prototype.

> 8) Would you like to start working on Apache 2.0?
>    (a) Yes I think that would be cool.
>    (b) No, I think you're a bunch of losers I'm going to join some other
>        httpd effort.
>    (c) No, I just like to watch the fighting.
>    (d) What is Apache 2.0?

Having followed the mailing list for a long time, that'd have to be d.

He -- you missed a question on the Great C++ Debate!


---------- Forwarded message ----------

On 1998-04-07 at 11:57:34, Dean Gaudet wrote:
> Hi there lurkers,

Heh, you asked for it. :)  After this much traffic, I'd think one wants
just a bit quietness, not more mail...

> 1) Do you feel that the Apache group is behaving like:

Dunno, it's just much more noise here than visible progress.

> 2) Are you happy using a product which is clearly managed by bumbling fools
>    that can't make any decisions?
>   (a) yes, it still is a cool webserver

Other than 1), I guess there really *are* much more active development
periods than just now.

> 3) Oh hey, do you want to vote for the two naming proposals?
>   (a) I believe that documentation is the place to define the API, and I
>       really just want a solution to the name space collision issues, so I
>       would like everything to be prefixed ap_.  I recognize that this is
>       a time-honoured solution, even ANSI and POSIX use this technique,
>       a leading _ is protected namespace, but by no means does it mean that
>       the function/keyword is private.

Close; I would guess in really fast paced development (how it should
be), without standards to follow (like POSIX et co. for kernels),
there's no reason to invest in rigid API's.  If older modules are
broken for a good reason, I won't be bothered.  If those have no
maintainers, and I need them, heck even I could fix them.  Document the
changes, and it's all OK.  If people try to use too much internals, yell
at them, and document the right way.

> 4) Do you feel that watching Apache make a decision is a lot like watching
>    government try to accomplish anything?
>    (a) yes

Close.  Maybe worse because the government (at least ours, and how I see
them :) is pushed to "finish" something, and payed for nothing; you
could have the choice to say "hey, this debate doesn't get anywhere,
let's forget it".

> 5) Do you think that the development guidelines
>    <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines> are a sign of a
>    dysfunctional group who can't trust each other?
>    (a) yes

It seems to me that "group" models, like this, are created to ease the
decision in common cases, and it all breaks because people would rather
bend the rules, question others' purposes, etc.  ("Why veto", "coz I
mean it")

> 6) (essay) Compare and contrast the terms "democracy" and "meritocracy".

History lessons weren't my favorite, and I've been turned away from
politics, despite the events over here in Europe, and despite they are
happening around me.  These terms only have marginal meanings to me only
because I'm a developer. :)

> 7) (essay) Do you have any suggestions as to how improve the Apache
>    development process?

Clear the personal oppositions outside of the mailing list, ask about
sympathy/antipathy feelings, and clear/acknowledge them with eachother.
Let you know others, and try to handle the communication problems
gracefully (I mean like, understanding my English; since I'm not native
English, don't assume what I say is what I mean, try to understand what
I wanted to say, and ask if in doubt.)

Oh, and trying to come up with really interesting things (like I/O
completion ports on linux-kernel) could help, and discussing how to use
them optimally where available, don't imply you are bound to use only
Unix-1973 features.

> 8) Would you like to start working on Apache 2.0?
>    (a) Yes I think that would be cool.

You mean me?  :)  If there would be too much in common in my work, and
actively developing a web server, I'd be there.  But even in the
optimistic case, it's about 2-3 hours a week at most I could spend
directly on this.



---------- Forwarded message ----------

>Hi there lurkers, and folks just not interested in saying a thing during
>these Holy Naming Wars.  I'd like your input.  I hope you're still there.
>Send it to me privately if you want, and I will strip your names and
>forward the results to the list.  Here's a little questionaire.


I know that this isn't really serious, but I'll answer none the less.
>Dean
>
>1) Do you feel that the Apache group is behaving like:
>  (a) pre-teens
>  (b) rebellious teenagers
>  (c) young ideallistic adults
>  (d) mature adults
>  (e) idiots


Usually b, occasionally e. Right now, definitely e

>2) Are you happy using a product which is clearly managed by bumbling fools
>   that can't make any decisions?
>  (a) yes, it still is a cool webserver
>  (b) no, no matter how cool it is


As long as they release sources. :-) Except I'm interested in the Win32 version
and it seems that ain't EVER gonna be released.

>3) Oh hey, do you want to vote for the two naming proposals?
>  (a) I believe that documentation is the place to define the API, and I
>      really just want a solution to the name space collision issues, so I
>      would like everything to be prefixed ap_.  I recognize that this is
>      a time-honoured solution, even ANSI and POSIX use this technique,
>      a leading _ is protected namespace, but by no means does it mean that
>      the function/keyword is private.
>
>  (b) I believe that we should spend a bunch of effort right now deciding
>      what is part of the API, and what isn't, and what won't ever be part
>      of the API, and we should include this information as documentation
>      in the symbols.  I clearly don't believe that documentation is
>      sufficient.


c) I actually agree with Ken that that the API should have both "symbol"
documentation
and regular documentation. I'm also an engineer who HATES doing documentation.
I truly beleive that HIDE=yes was the correct solution and Roy should be spanked
for
retro-actively vetoing it. Damn him and his debugger.

>4) Do you feel that watching Apache make a decision is a lot like watching
>   government try to accomplish anything?
>   (a) yes
>   (b) no


Yes. Both rarely accomplish anything without major hysteronics

>5) Do you think that the development guidelines
>   <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines> are a sign of a
>   dysfunctional group who can't trust each other?
>   (a) yes
>   (b) no


No. Its a sign of a few too many nights reading "Robert's rules of Order", which
is a book on how to set up a dysfunctional group who can't trust each other.

>6) (essay) Compare and contrast the terms "democracy" and "meritocracy".


In a democracy, everyone is considered equal for the purpose of voting. Since
each citizen has one vote, all decisions must be the "will of the majority" to
pass.

In a mertocracy, those who have "merit" are the only ones who have votes, and
the more merit, the more votes. Unfortunately, merit is a subjective term and
unless
the group can agree on who has what amount of merit, it can degenerate quickly.
In theory, this is better than a democracy, since it doesn't take all that much
skill to
reproduce. In practice, turns into a hedgemony with a few members controlling
the
group. Until everyone gets upset and either leaves or revolts.

>7) (essay) Do you have any suggestions as to how improve the Apache
>   development process?


Sure. Incorporate and start charging money. Then the project can fail in well
known, tried-and-true ways. :-)

In reality, I'd suggest that you dispense with the "some are more equal than
others"
implicit rule. Also, make getting releases out the door more important than
squabling
about on how many prefix characters to type. Christ, a lot of sites are running
Apache
1.1 betas! This whole issue could have been moot if Apache 2.0 where actually
being
worked on, since everyone (at the moment) agrees that the API should be done
over.

>8) Would you like to start working on Apache 2.0?
>   (a) Yes I think that would be cool.


I'd like to help with the Win32 version, but only if the project admits that
it will be a Win32 project, not a ported Unix project. SIGUSR?? Give me
a break! And the requirement of anon CVS cuts out most of us behind
any sort of firewall.

Certainly, if you want Win32 developers, you've got to have a less "Unix
rulz..."
attitude. Most Win32 developers that I know aren't able to set up CVS and
deal with GNU gcc, etc. I'm not going to defend this, but I do think its true.

>   (b) No, I think you're a bunch of losers I'm going to join some other
>       httpd effort.
>   (c) No, I just like to watch the fighting.
>   (d) What is Apache 2.0?





---------- Forwarded message ----------

okay, i lurk (grin).

> 1) Do you feel that the Apache group is behaving like:
>   (a) pre-teens
>   (b) rebellious teenagers
>   (c) young ideallistic adults
>   (d) mature adults
>   (e) idiots

C - clearly.

> 2) Are you happy using a product which is clearly managed by bumbling fools
>    that can't make any decisions?
>   (a) yes, it still is a cool webserver
>   (b) no, no matter how cool it is

heh.
i guess the question is, how much 'management' does Apache need?
i'd say 'a' as long as it doesn't get TOO much in the way of being a
good product.

> 3) Oh hey, do you want to vote for the two naming proposals?
>   (a) I believe that documentation is the place to define the API, and I
>       really just want a solution to the name space collision issues, so I
>       would like everything to be prefixed ap_.  I recognize that this is
>       a time-honoured solution, even ANSI and POSIX use this technique,
>       a leading _ is protected namespace, but by no means does it mean that
>       the function/keyword is private.
> 
>   (b) I believe that we should spend a bunch of effort right now deciding
>       what is part of the API, and what isn't, and what won't ever be part
>       of the API, and we should include this information as documentation
>       in the symbols.  I clearly don't believe that documentation is
>       sufficient.

a
no doubt.
everyone just has to accept that this is not a PERSONAL issue and get on
with it.

> 4) Do you feel that watching Apache make a decision is a lot like watching
>    government try to accomplish anything?
>    (a) yes
>    (b) no

heh

no way. too much honesty.
admittedly - sometimes it is boring and painful, but...
in the end GOOD things result.

> 5) Do you think that the development guidelines
>    <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines> are a sign of a
>    dysfunctional group who can't trust each other?
>    (a) yes
>    (b) no

grin.
i'd insert 'family' in there.

i think the obvious problem is that there are people who want a sense of
'control' over the project, other people who have personal investment in
things and others who need to get a life.

advice? ask the USERS of Apache what they want (for example a little
voting thing on the apache site might be helpful).

> 6) (essay) Compare and contrast the terms "democracy" and "meritocracy".

laugh

very nice.
of course, you need to be clear about democracy as preached or
practiced. grin.

> 7) (essay) Do you have any suggestions as to how improve the Apache
>    development process?

streamline it.
add a staging and testing CVS server with full access.
create a steering committee with oversight.
simple voting on all issues - majority rules.

> 8) Would you like to start working on Apache 2.0?
>    (a) Yes I think that would be cool.
>    (b) No, I think you're a bunch of losers I'm going to join some other
>        httpd effort.
>    (c) No, I just like to watch the fighting.
>    (d) What is Apache 2.0?

a

please.

i wish i had the skills to be of any assistance other than testing, but
i can at least do that.


---------- Forwarded message ----------

On Tue, 7 Apr 1998, Dean Gaudet wrote:

> 1) Do you feel that the Apache group is behaving like:
>   (a) pre-teens
>   (b) rebellious teenagers
>   (c) young ideallistic adults
>   (d) mature adults
>   (e) idiots

Answer varies.  For the Holy Name Wars, most are (a) through (c) and (e). 
In general, otherwise, the group is (c) through(e).

It's hard to choose between (c) and (b) most times though.

> 2) Are you happy using a product which is clearly managed by bumbling fools
>    that can't make any decisions?
>   (a) yes, it still is a cool webserver
>   (b) no, no matter how cool it is

The product is solid, the design/implementation team is being foolish.  So
what?  I was thinking, just yesterday, however, that a lot of the lurkers
must have been chaced off by the inane arguments.

with 20 years programming under my belt, I'll give you my take on the
entire issue:

  shut up and get back to work

you're all correct and you're all incorrect.  It's not _the_ solution we
(users) want, it's _a_ solution.  That's the reason it's hard to whether
the group is pre-teen, rebelious teen, or what.  At some point mature,
experience programmers would just say "f*ck it, I got product to ship ..
this can wait until later"  .. of course, that's easier to realize if
you're actually getting _paid_ for the work. 

> 3) Oh hey, do you want to vote for the two naming proposals?
>   (a) I believe that documentation is the place to define the API, and I
>       really just want a solution to the name space collision issues, so I
>       would like everything to be prefixed ap_.  I recognize that this is
>       a time-honoured solution, even ANSI and POSIX use this technique,
>       a leading _ is protected namespace, but by no means does it mean that
>       the function/keyword is private.
> 
>   (b) I believe that we should spend a bunch of effort right now deciding
>       what is part of the API, and what isn't, and what won't ever be part
>       of the API, and we should include this information as documentation
>       in the symbols.  I clearly don't believe that documentation is
>       sufficient.

(c) I got work to do.  You assholes argue, I'm getting back to coding.

> 4) Do you feel that watching Apache make a decision is a lot like watching
>    government try to accomplish anything?
>    (a) yes
>    (b) no

(b) no .. the gov't would for a commitee to ensure nothing gets done.

> 5) Do you think that the development guidelines
>    <http://dev.apache.org/guidelines> are a sign of a
>    dysfunctional group who can't trust each other?
>    (a) yes
>    (b) no

(b), well maybe (a) when you're all wrangling and not coding

> 6) (essay) Compare and contrast the terms "democracy" and "meritocracy".

"democracy" a form of government depending up the concensus of all members
of the society .. the definition of 'member' can be surprising.

"meritocracy" a made-up word trying to masquerade as a form of gov't but
in practice a way for the 'in' group to feel superior to the 'not-in'
group.

> 7) (essay) Do you have any suggestions as to how improve the Apache
>    development process?

you need a 'rule' which says something to the effect:

When <int> group members feel a discussion has bogged down and has become
a battle of wills, they, by voting so on the mailing list and in STATUS,
may quash the discussion.  In such a case, if any changes have been
committed, they shall be rolled back.  All changes related to the issue in
question, and discussion of the issue on the open mailing list, shall
cease for a <int.GE.14>-day period.  After that period, the discussion
may be reopenned.  The intention is to provide a cooling off period,
allowing the sparring members to discuss their issues off-list and/or
reflect upon their positions.

> 8) Would you like to start working on Apache 2.0?
>    (a) Yes I think that would be cool.

Why I joined the mailing list.  I got a module in mind, and I was hoping
the mailing list would allow me to learn how and why things are the way
they are in the Apache code.  I think it's succeeded, just not in the way
I'd hoped.

>    (b) No, I think you're a bunch of losers I'm going to join some other
>        httpd effort.

I think this often but never for very long.  I have noted an increased
frequency of feeling this way recently, but I've managed to turn it into
(c), below.

Honestly, I've often wished I had land-mail addresses so I'd know where to
send the Pampers.  If it weren't for the fact that I can say "Yeah, I used
to be a snot-nosed junios programmer."  I probably would drop the mailing
list.  I'm staying, though, because I wanna see if you all grow up, or if
you'll eventually cause the project to implode and disappear.

>    (c) No, I just like to watch the fighting.

I think this sometimes too.  The Naming Wars have passed beyond discussion
or even argument.  Now people are pissing into the wind and the only
reason I can see for doing that is they like getting wet.

>    (d) What is Apache 2.0?

Apache 2.0?  Isn't that just there so you can have someplace to shove
stuff nobody's ever gonna do?

Seriously: 2.0 will NEVER get anywhere if the group waits for the group to
do it.  Someone should write a 'white paper' describing what the goals
are, why they've been choosen, and what the alternative means of achiving
them are.  In short, until someone does a little analysis you're never
gonna do 2.0 so why don't you all admit it and get on with 1.4?


Mime
View raw message