Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:46:41 +0200
From: "Ralf S. Engelschall" <rse@engelschall.com>
To: new-httpd@apache.org
Subject: Re: Back to the roots
Message-ID: <19990426084641.A81822@engelschall.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: Engelschall, Germany.
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org


In article <9904251845.aa15962@paris.ics.uci.edu> you wrote:

>>   [...] But I'm convinced that a piece of software dies whenever one
>>   starts making politics with it and out of it. I know that mostly all don't
>>   share my impression that ASF is politics, of course. It's perhaps only my
>>   dogmatic opinion...
> 
> Ralf, now you are insulting me.  

Sorry, but you would be surprised to hear that even you're personally pushing
the ASF physically my "observed ASF-hype" isn't really related to your person
or even your particular actions, Roy. It's more the general ASF-related hype
around APR, establishing hundrets of "director of foobar" names, letting force
our hand by indirect company-goals, etc.

> Perhaps if you had a better understanding
> of politics you would understand what I have been doing and why I have been
> doing it.  

Yes, perhaps you're right and my understand of software politics isn't good
enough. I've perhaps to admit this...

> ASF exists to separate the legal and business issues of protecting
> the Apache projects from the technical decisions within those projects.
> It exists to do exactly what you want, but it can't do so if the people
> it intends to protect are going to act like spoiled brats. 

I understand that ASF should protect us. I'm just very sceptical whether the
final results go into the right direction in the long-term, because as I said:
too much organisation IMHO maybe kill the actual coding efforts. And all I
want is that people still keep in mind that coding is what makes Apache living
and not any organisations or politics. It's fine when ASF can protect our
coding, but it's not fine when in the future we're only protected but doing
too less coding.

> [...]
> but you have no right to imply that the others who *have* promised to
> devote their time are doing so for anything but the best of reasons.

I'm convinced every one who devotes its time do it does it with the best
intentions, of course. Else it would be horrible. I'm just not convinced
whether the chosen direction is really the reasonable direction we should go.
But as you said, perhaps my understanding of software politics isn't good
enough here. I've to admit that my point of views are always mainly based on
technical issues.

> [...]
> If you don't like the way ASF is proceeding [and this has nothing to do
> with shtool, of which I have no opinion, never agreed with Jim's comments,
> and has no relation to ASF whasoever as far as I'm concerned] then by all
> means put in the effort to change it.  

My main wish is actually that we follow the "sometimes the only way to win is
not to play" idea. I personally would not create ASF. That's all. So I cannot
put any efforts into ASF to change it. Because my change is that I personally
think we don't need it. But again, perhaps that's because my understanding of
software politics isn't good enough. Perhaps when ASF successfully protected
us in the future my point of view will change. I hope this happens, of course.

> [...]
> I have a hard time
> understanding why any part of this conversation with Jim should result
> in you making negative comments about the ASF.  Jim is not the ASF.

Ok, that was my failure in treating Jim's offenses on shtool too personally
and projecting the situation to the ASF-related things. Sorry when I made ASF
too negative here.

> That's all I am going to say on this issue.  Just do me a favor and
> don't destroy the project while I am on vacation. 

I'll try to be more quiet ;)
                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
                                       rse@engelschall.com
                                       www.engelschall.com