river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dan Creswell <...@dcrdev.demon.co.uk>
Subject Re: River and Backward Compatibility
Date Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:00:41 GMT
Hi Mark,

No offense taken and as it happens my preferences are the same but:

(1)	The corporate world just doesn't work the same way - many things are
done with side-conversations over beer or whatever between engineers who
are notionally rivals or potential leaks not under a current NDA.

(2)	Many feel they don't have the skills to represent themselves
adequately and would prefer to work with an individual they trust to get
their points across.

(3)	Demanding open'ness has only so much effect.  Myself, Ewan Silver,
Nigel Warren, Phil Bishop and others have all found that working closely
with these "private individuals" and coaching them to be more open over
time (in a way that suits them - e.g. contributing a patch, releasing
something as opensource, writing up some notes on a Jini experience,
presenting at a show, organizing a get-together over beer and pizza etc
etc) works well.

(4)	Much of the private conversation I have leads to further
opportunities for Jini/River beyond current engagements as people I've
worked with change companies and wish to take Jini/River with them.

Thus whilst I'll advocate open'ness I'm not going to discourage people
from taking the first step towards open'ness via private email
discussion with me.



Mark Brouwer wrote:
> Dan Creswell wrote:
>> My question was deliberately very open - I'm interested in any and all
>> thoughts, of course views on the specifics of the compatibility debate
>> around AR1 are more useful at this time.
>> I've seen a lot of caveats so far relating to not being in production -
>> would appreciate hearing from some of those that do have production
>> deployments (I'll happily accept private email on this for those that
>> wish to be stealthy).
> Hi Dan, please don't take it as any offense but I'm rather uncomfortable
> with "I'll happily accept private email on this for those that wish to
> be stealthy".
> I've been long uncomfortable with the fact that some stakeholders in the
> Jini community wished to remain anonymous and speak through some proxy
> (a story I've heard often in those private conversation I also had). It
> ain't hard to get a temp email address if the stakes are high and one
> wishes to remain anonymous.
> This email may sound as an overreaction, but I like to make use of the
> opportunity to express something I've always been able to bite my tongue
> so for, but no longer.
> The move of Jini to the Apache River project implies an increase in
> transparency to me, that what concerns the codebase should be discussed
> in the open and that those who express their opinion themselves will be
> heard, those who stay silent IMHO not.
> Of course I realize that some people may represent a larger part of the
> Jini community, that is fine, and that those parts of the Jini community
> will have its own means to influence their proxy. But in the end it is
> that single persons who steps forwards with his/her opinion and with a
> single vote.
> How can we properly discuss with or find out about the details when
> someone only speaks through a proxy who by definition (because of
> being human) applies its own filtering due to "cognitive dissonance", I
> realize not everybody is maybe subject to it to the extent I am, but
> still ...
> IMHO what we should advocate is to speak in the open, and to discourage
> taking private email concerning these matters.
> -- 
> Mark
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Getting Started:     http://www.jini.org/wiki/Category:Getting_Started
> Community Web Site:  http://jini.org
> jini-users Archive:  http://archives.java.sun.com/archives/jini-users.html
> Unsubscribing:       email "signoff JINI-USERS"  to listserv@java.sun.com

View raw message