incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stephen McConnell <mcconn...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Code ownership (was Re: whoweare.html)
Date Fri, 08 Nov 2002 01:06:20 GMT


Peter Donald wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 10:13, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>Bottom line - there is positive
>>stuff that came out of the work you did.
>>
>
>Bottom line, code doesn't matter, never has and probably will - at least in 
>projects I am a part of. The most important thing is the collaboration and 
>working together. Apache is not a place to dump code but a place to build and 
>maintain a community.
>
>I don't really care how OMG operates, I don't really care why you believe 
>Apaches rules suck I don't really care if you believe that "the Avalon the 
>Community has nothing to offer" if they don't follow your recomendations. 
>

You statetment concerning my beliefs are incorrect. As to the the
quotation .. perhaps you could be more complete in your references.
After all, I sure you don't want to misslead anyone.

Stephen McConnell wrote:
> Avalon is in my opinion the most important project in Apache. But I 
> believe that Avalon is only as strong as its community. For the 
> community to work together it must abandon playground policies and 
> really engage in addressing the difficult issue of bringing all of this 
> work together. If the Avalon community cannot do this the Avalon the 
> Community has nothing to offer.


These comments were in response to discussions concerning the potential 
segregation of voting privaliges within Avalon - a position that would
lead to community fragmentation.

>If 
>you have something constructive and positive to offer then present it to the 
>community and we can decide whether it is of value and if we want to go down 
>that path.
>

I agree - let's keep this constructive and positive. I think you will agree
that back in April the containerkit progress became unworkable and as a 
result
a new package was created completely in accordance with the Jakarta process.
I don't see any issues there.  More recently things got a little out of
control (I'm referring to the events around mid August).  During that
period things deteriated signficantly.  

Looking back, I think that a number of factors complicated the process. 
Veto
incidents at that time were almost exclusively raised on CVS commit messages
instead of the dev list. If there was a requirement for the declaration of
a veto on the dev list - I think things would have unfolded differently.

For example, if a developer intends to veto an action, I think it should be
a requirement that the developer in question raises this on the developer
list, preferably marked with a message title "[VETO]....".

>
>
>You tried to apply changes to code that you have never participated in. Do a 
>"cvs log | grep mcconnel" on either the jakarta-avalon-cornerstone or 
>jakarta-avalon-phoenix. The only (non-vetoed) changes you made were prior to 
>you becoming a committer and were fixes for broken documentation generation.
>

That's an interesting perspective. Perhaps one could conclude that there is
perhaps a personality clash here.  That's ok - we have different points of
view on things.  If you go back to the facts you will find a concrete
technical issues. However, tracing these down is difficult because of the
lack of structure to the process of handling a veto.  I can point to
several vetos you raised under CVS commit messages that simply reference
prior -1s.  I have on several occasions attempted to find your "technical
explination" but failed.  This suggests to me that either the process is
failing us, or, we have failed to use the process.

>
>
>It was innapropriate behaviour to commit those changes when vetos stood - 
>especially given that you didn't participate in those communities (not to 
>mention being highly critical of them). 
>

Get to the point.  Your raising questions of behaviour relative to a 
standing
veto.  The only standing veto was your personal opposition to any and all
actions my myself that would result in my participation with the Phoenix
sub-community irrespective of the potential contribution.  If you want
to instigate change in behaviour, I suggest (a) set yourself up as an 
example,
(b) demonstrate your ability to communicate the technical concerns that you
have, and (c) practice clean and open engagement to procedures.

>The two committers who supported you 
>have since appologized on avalon-dev for their behaviour and tried to make 
>amends.
>

I am not the only one to have received one of your blistering nasty
personal email attacks.  But I've come to notice those messages on Avalon
when individuals apologize for something that in reality they have 
nothing to
apologize about.  Do you really believe that you have the moral right or
privilege to instigate this sort of a response? Instead of throwing
accusations around - lets focus on the real stuff.

>
>
>In a recent email you wrote;
>
>"I wanted to leverage ideas, beliefs, opinions - and through 
>this process, enhance and improve not only the content that I committed, 
>but also I to pay-back the confidence that the Avalon project had placed 
>in me when they voting me into this community."
>
>All I can say is that the ball is in your court. 
>


Yep - don't you hate it!
;-)


>
>
>Start caring about the whole of Avalon rather than your patch is one of the 
>first things to do. Just have a look at avalon-user list and count the number 
>of your recent replies where you have not treated helping the user as an 
>advertising exercise. 
>

A user posts an email to avalon-users describing a problem.  I post a 
reply that proposes a solution to that user's problem.  Are you 
objecting to that because I'm not promoting your view of the world?  As 
to advertising, are you suggesting that I should not be communicating 
the rather interesting benefits and potential of an alternative container?

:-)


>Look at the number of times you have helped a user with 
>something that you didn't write.
>

ROTFL ...!

Yep - all of those Avalon posts.
Yep - all of those Phoenix support posts.
Yep - and all of those containerkit support posts.

Oh gosh  ... 
  are you telling me that I should not have done that?

>
>Also begin to look at what code you work on. Is it chance that you are the 
>only person who works on that code? 
>

LOL

Actually I'm not - problem is that collaboration has gone underground.  
You are a significant force in Avalon.  Who is prepared to stand up to 
Pete - I am.  And the result - you try to get me thrown out of Apache - 
you launch repeated accusation of misconduct. You protect yourself by 
never actually putting the fact into the public domain.  Get real Pete - 
If you have something to complain about then lodge a complaint in 
accordance with the Jakarta policies and procedures.  If the policies 
and procedures are not sufficient for your to destroy me - then perhaps 
there is a problem with the policies and procedures.  

Instead of attacking me - get constructive and make some recommendations 
- make some proposal that would establish the framework within which you 
can engage your regime of crucifixion with immunity. Let's sort of the 
procedures against which you and I can go head-to-head with the mother 
of all battles without resorting to personal attacks.

Are you ready for the real thing?

Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




Mime
View raw message