RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
-Original Message- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22 December 2004 01:21 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ?? On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Stephen McConnell wrote: Will the ASF shield me? In normal cases - yes as it is in the interest of the ASF community and codebase long term. And we are in it for the long term. However if you go outside the CLA and the normal oversight process and that is what causes the issue; no - most propably. Are here is the rub. The normal oversight process is closely tied to the policies and procedures on the ground. Things like release procedures, release manager, etc. We have several statements from members of the board that policies and procedures established at the PMC level are in effect null and void. Given a scenario where a challenge occurs, the issue comes down to an arbitrary decision by the board to stand behind the individual, or, to do nothing and claim that doing nothing is in the interest of the foundation. Cynical? Maybe .. but at least this discussion has established some reference points concerning what is real and what is imaginary. Cheers, Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: William A. Rowe, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 December 2004 08:42 To: community@apache.org Cc: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed At 08:30 PM 12/16/2004, Stephen McConnell wrote: Concerning our decision making processes, I have a couple of questions... * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? They have absolute decision making process within the board's mandate for their project. Bill: According to Greg Stein this should not be the case. Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. I should point out that Greg's position seems to contradict section 6.3 of the bylaws in that it is stated that a PMC is a committee with a designated chairman. The bylaws also seem to clearly state that the committee is responsible for active management. In the Avalon case-study the Chair largely ignored the notion of committee responsibility and chose instead to exercise privileges related to the role of officer of the foundation. In doing so he actively and publicly took actions without consulting the Avalon PMC and on at least one occasion justified this on the grounds that the PMC would not agree with his position. IMO there are two related issues here: a) the lack of accountability of the Chair towards the committee b) the reluctance of the Board to properly recognize the PMC as the responsible entity I think that there are practices that can be adopted to address these issues. For example a committee should have the ability to remove a chair (for example via a vote of no-confidence) and such an action should be recognized as within the authority of the committee. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 04:29 To: community@apache.org; Noel J. Bergman Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: I give you an example of what I call 'compromise' and 'collaboration' ; Those events as you describe them did happen. If they were the only ones, we'd have a happy healthy community. :o) Each individual works on what he/she finds interesting, relevant and important. Opinions are appreciated, but by no means right, just because a group within the community say so. Actually, all it takes to veto a change is one PMC member to cast a -1 with a technical justification. The issue is how a community deals with those vetos, and how progress can be made by resolving them. So, please bring to the table a particular case, since I fail to recall any such veto being ignored and/or not worked on to be resolved, other than the mentioned Leo Simons' (was he even PMC at the time? still not ignored.) one, which got caught up in a larger mess. Leo was not on the PMC at the time - in fact I think he posted his veto to the PMC list after having left Avalon. Also Leo retracted that veto not long after posting it. But Noel was a PMC Member so he's aware of this - so perhaps Noel is referring to something else? Steve. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 05:10 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:41, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Point? That consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects (people do leave healthy projects) which is replenished with new blood (but in our case that is also turned into something bad). SO the point is; Consensus by attrition is FUD, and hard to argue against, yet said enough many times, it has turned into a fact. People leaving a project for J Random Reason is acceptable attrition. People leaving because they don't agree with the majority opinion is, too. A practice of asking people to leave, or trying to drive them away, because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. Charges of the latter were levied, and as I recall were supported by the email archives. If so (i.e., if I'm not misremembering), it's a factual observation of behaviour, not FUD. I suspect Noel already has the relevant source documents ready to hand if necessary. OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. Open up the Avalon PMC archives and let's really get down to real metal and in the process I think we will clean up more that a couple of popular misconceptions. In fact publishing this stuff would be in best interests of the foundation - unless of course somebody has something to hide, and surely, that's not the case, not here. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed consensus by attrition is a negatively loaded term, yet a natural occurring thing in all projects Not when the attrition is caused by unhealthy friction and stress within the community, and an active(and stated) goal to remove those who didn't share a particular vision. If I remember correctly you coined the phrase, and now you are promoting this left right and center presumably as your rationalization of past events. Cut to chase - publish all of this - not just the selected extracts. Let's stop this hiding behind private lists. Stephen. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 December 2004 22:16 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Maybe it's about dealing with the breach of procedure by the Chair of a PMC and ensuring that this does not get rewarded nor repeated. Once again, there was no technical breach of procedure. Of custom, perhaps, but not of procedure. This is another dead horse that should stop getting beaten. A set of polices and procedures were established and these procedures governing the decision making processes within the Avalon PMC. These policies established rules concerning discussion, voting, and reporting. Unfortunately Aaron decided that he was above these rules, a notion supported by the Chairman and a number of the members of the board. There is absolute indisputable evidence of Aaron disregard for these procedures and the opinion of the PMC. Lets' not even argue about that. Instead I would suggest you think about the impact of these actions on the PMC members and the community. The breakdown in trust underpins the subject of this thread and every single person subscribed to this list is better off for knowing that. So instead of defending the ASF - how about thinking about strengthening what you have by at least listening and perhaps suggesting ways in which we can prevent this in the future. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 05:30 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed Stephen McConnell wrote: William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: Stephen McConnell wrote: * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? They have absolute decision making process within the board's mandate for their project. According to Greg Stein this should not be the case. Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. I should point out that Greg's position seems to contradict section 6.3 of the bylaws in that it is stated that a PMC is a committee with a designated chairman. The bylaws also seem to clearly state that the committee is responsible for active management. Actually, it says that the that the PMC shall consist of at least one officer of the corporation, who shall be designated the PMC Chair, and who shall be primarily responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of project(s) for which the committee is responsible. And as a PMC Member you would be completely familiar with the rules and procedures of the day to day management. http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/avalon/site/central/community/process/pm c/procedures.html [The PMC Chair] actively and publicly took actions without consulting the Avalon PMC and on at least one occasion justified this on the grounds that the PMC would not agree with his position. Aaron consulted with the PMC on every occasion that I can recall. Interestingly - you were actually there when he said that! In the case of migrating Phoenix to SVN, you can hardly claim that he made a unilateral decision. Probably more than anyone, I am the resident pain-in-arse about preserving ALL history, which I consider a corporate asset. And I am absolutely unapologetic about a) the lack of accountability of the Chair towards the committee b) the reluctance of the Board to properly recognize the PMC as the responsible entity You raised similar issues in the past. If it comes down to it, the Membership owns the Foundation. The Foundation is run for the Public Good as best we can, and those who demonstrate merit are invited to become Members, Officers and Directors. If this is the best that the foundation can do or is this the simpler scenario of an organization incapable of looking at the facts and asking itself if it couldn't do better? a committee should have the ability to remove a chair The PMC lacks the authority to do so. Which is why it was presented as a recommendation! Do you see an inherent problem with the notion of a Chair accountable to the committee? Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 14:32 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Once again, there was no technical breach of procedure. Of custom, perhaps, but not of procedure. This is another dead horse that should stop getting beaten. A set of polices and procedures were established and these procedures governing the decision making processes within the Avalon PMC. These policies established rules concerning discussion, voting, and reporting. Unfortunately Aaron decided that he was above these rules, a notion supported by the Chairman and a number of the members of the board. No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. If the Avalon policies are invalid - why did the Chairman not say so? Why did *you* remain silent? Why did every member of the board choose to sit or their thumbs? Explain how your selective and timely prose contribute to the proper running of this organization? Authority without accountability? I'm could imagine why you and other members of the board feel comfortable with this. Make a chair accountable to the committee and the next thing you know will be board accountability to chairs. Oh god - would that send a rocket up the darker passages of the ASF! Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 20:13 To: community@apache.org Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed On Dec 21, 2004, at 2:02 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: Authority without accountability? I'm could imagine why you and other members of the board feel comfortable with this. Make a chair accountable to the committee and the next thing you know will be board accountability to chairs. Oh god - would that send a rocket up the darker passages of the ASF! I realize that this is little more than a filibuster, and I probably should be smacked for feeding *this* troll *smack* Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 20:22 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. No more than, say, the federal government is to citizens of a state when that state passes laws that encroach on federal authority. I.e., not at all. Things stand until they're tested. Bravo, Stephen; you've now competely and utterly convinced me that you're an accomplished troll. It's evidently impossible to hold a reasoned discussion with you. Apparently you're not the least bit interested in Truth; all you're interested in is Being Right. Or so it seems to me. Until you demonstrate that you can at least attempt dispassion and objectivity, I don't intend to waste any more of my time responding to your trolls. Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Stephen. - -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQch3t5rNPMCpn3XdAQHDBwP9HYWo/pIr7dR4snGdjdykQLQxSN3ckKU7 5PjkhVerfI9kaCNmQrQT4s68W2G3EYhnOBtl1P8CBORXoKN0n7t+XZiK8uZgL1Jj twNWT2yi9JYyRf7G864dUkmBcHB7df804X6plAr8wBZEgz/Wl/vttJTKm5uUDrKH OY/FD7+8pao= =UPvh -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 20:22 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: No policy adopted by a project can supercede the policies of the ASF. Any that do are null and void, or, at best, advisory only. Then clearly you have been negligent in your responsibility towards the Avalon community. No more than, say, the federal government is to citizens of a state when that state passes laws that encroach on federal authority. I.e., not at all. Things stand until they're tested. Bravo, Stephen; you've now competely and utterly convinced me that you're an accomplished troll. It's evidently impossible to hold a reasoned discussion with you. Apparently you're not the least bit interested in Truth; all you're interested in is Being Right. Or so it seems to me. Until you demonstrate that you can at least attempt dispassion and objectivity, I don't intend to waste any more of my time responding to your trolls. Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 21:55 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Clearly you are not prepared to face up to the fact that the there is a disconnect within the ASF policies and procedures and the functioning of an open community. Clearly you are not prepared, willing or able to address this. You decision to abstain from further discussion within this context is an appropriate move and I commend and applaud this decision. Last message on this: None of the above is clear. You are guilty out of your own mouth/keyboard of ascribing to others -- in this case me -- the motivations you want to believe they have. Your paragraph above demonstrates yet again that you will twist anything you can to support your position. By refraining from trying to deal with you further I am in no way suggesting that I believe you to be correct. Disengaging from a debate does not equate to giving up and accepting the other side's argument. And to specifically and explicitly give the lie to your assertions above, Stephen, I will gladly discuss any of the named issues with anyone capable of doing so reasonably. I just no longer consider that to include you. I am not 'abstaining from further discussion' on them -- I am abstaining from attempting to discuss them with *you*. So go ahead and find someone else who supports your position, and can participate in reasonable discussion, and get that person to engage me on those topics right here on this list. Go ahead and feed that person lines behind the scenes if you like, to make sure that you feel you're being represented. But don't bother trying to represent yourself any more, at least not to me -- you have reduced your own credibility to less than zero in my opinion through your choice of tactics. Sooner of later you have to make a choice. Are you a part of the pile or are your going to do something about the pile. It appears that you have made that decision. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ??
-Original Message- From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 December 2004 21:59 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: Is ASL2.0 not GPL-compatible ?? On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, robert burrell donkin wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 00:02, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Furthermore, it was explained to me that the patent right disclaimers in the ASL2.0 can be circumvented in nasty ways by a truly malicious company/individual if that is the intent I'd be interested in any detailed constructions as to how such would happen. As we are constantly debugging our licenses. by this time next year, software patent violations are most likely to be enforceable by criminal sanction. I fail to see how the current proposed changes would make any material change in that respect for say, the netherlands, italy or germany. pliant european legal system (UK law, for example). i don't see any way in which the ASF could act to help release managers faced with the criminal law in europe That is exactly what we are here for. And I can think of many ways to help here. And we contineously try to improve this. Also note that in the Apache Software Foundation it is not the release manager who is distributing any code or choosing what to release when - but the Apache Sofware Foundation. There is a lot of due process to ensure that any release which goes out is an ASF release and that any deceisions are taken by the committers with a proper vote and with proper oversight by the board of directors. As long as committers stick to their CLA and contributors to their license thenwe can, and will choose, to do a lot to shield them. Will the ASF shield me? I doubt it. I really doubt it. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I can somewhat understand though not empathize with wanting to have history reflect what you see as having happened. Maybe this about making Apache a better place by identifying hypocrisy here out in the open instead of behind the protection of private lists. Maybe it's about dealing with the breach of procedure by the Chair of a PMC and ensuring that this does not get rewarded nor repeated. Maybe this is about sending a message to some of the members of the board that coercion has consequence. Stephen. -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech software . strategy . design http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 December 2004 21:01 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed Niclas Hedhman wrote: Smoke and Mirrors - isn't there a passage in the New Testament with something about sin and stones ? And it's amazing how high the political can stack without smell. But, anyway, that is history so let's move on with our lives - after all, the only ones who really got hurt were the Avalon users, and the ASF establishment have already declared that they are not important. I've tried to stay out of this thread(s), but I just have to say, give me a break. James was one of Avalon's most visible users, and I simply cannot stand to hear someone from Avalon criticize the ASF establishment about the treatment of Avalon users. Serge: Perhaps it could be argued that the following list positions James as a visible user of dead, never released, unreproducible, redundant and unsupported technology? I couldn't say. But I would like to know if this is what you meant by the ASF establishment taking care of the James community? Dependency ASF Management Strategy avalon-framework-4.1.3.jar EXCALIBUR excalibur-pool-1.0.jar EXCALIBUR excalibur-logger-1.0.jarEXCALIBUR logkit-1.2.jar EXCALIBUR excalibur-thread-1.0.jarEXCALIBUR excalibur-datasource-1.0.jarEXCALIBUR excalibur-baxter-1.0a.jar DEAD excalibur-containerkit-1.0.jar DEAD excalibur-configuration-1.0.jar DEPRICATED excalibur-instrument-0.1.jarNEVER RELEASED excalibur-cli-1.0.jar REPLACE BY COMMONS CLI excalibur-io-1.1.jarREPLACE BY COMMONS IO cornerstone.jar UNRELEASED UNREPODUCABLE excalibur-concurrent-1.0.jarDEAD excalibur-i18n-1.0.jar DEAD phoenix-client.jar DEAD excalibur-threadcontext-1.0.jar DEAD excalibur-collections-1.0.jar DEAD excalibur-extension-1.0a.jarDEAD excalibur-util-1.0.jar DEAD phoenix-bsh-commands.jarDEAD The above list is actually really interesting because it was a subject at the center of the first critical drama between the Chair, members of the board, and activate Avalon committers. The active committer community objected to the transfer of dead code from cvs to svn, arguing that the Avalon svn should contain the active alive code. Irrespective of the validity of this opinion - members of the board actively encouraged Aaron to ignore any PMC opinion and take an executive decision. In my mind (and I'm not alone) this was the start of a fallout between the chair, certain members of the board, and members of the Avalon development community. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 December 2004 23:11 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed the only ones who really got hurt were the Avalon users, and the ASF establishment have already declared that they are not important. With the exception of Phoenix, which evolved externally as Loom, and Merlin, which decided to move away from the ASF, all of the Avalon code is still under ASF management in the Excalibur project. In effect, Avalon was renamed Excalibur, and the two container factions that chose not to participate with everyone else have left for pastures that permit such behavior. Noel: When you say and the two container factions that chose not to participate with everyone else you are implying and active choice? Do you believe that the Avalon community was presented with a choice? Secondly, do you believe that the Metro project was established on the premise of non-participation or was pastures that permit such behavior just an unfortunate turn of phrase? Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17 December 2004 03:09 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed Stephen McConnell wrote: When you say and the two container factions that chose not to participate with everyone else you are implying and active choice? Do you believe that the Avalon community was presented with a choice? Yes to both. And multiple of each over extended periods of time. Secondly, do you believe that the Metro project was established on the premise of non-participation or was pastures that permit such behavior just an unfortunate turn of phrase? My reference was to the choice by the Metro project to go elsewhere, where the leaders can make decisions without needing to cater to competing or conflicting voices from an established community, rather than to keep Metro within the ASF, and within the bounds of our decision making processes. Thank you for that clarification. Concerning our decision making processes, I have a couple of questions... * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? * Within our decision processes, what do you think is more important - the community or the individual? Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And on behalf of the developers at Avalon, I would like to Thank ALL the past Chairs and members of the Avalon PMC, for a all-in-all a job well done. I'm sorry - but you will have to exclude myself from the above endorsement. The Avalon community established a PMC to represent the community interests concerning the direction and administration of the Avalon project. The community interests were clear - a single platform, one specification, a cohesive solution. That decision was not respected by the outgoing chair nor the board of directors of the ASF. That is not the definition of a job-well-done. Instead this is much more about the weakness of individuals - in particular the members of the board of directors of the ASF and not least of all our outgoing chain. However - there is much that can be learnt from this. The weaknesses of the BOD can be attributed to their collective unwillingness to confront members of their own board. The weakness of our Chair was more a question of his personal loyalty to the community. Irrespective of the above obstacles a real and tangible alternative to ASF continues under http://www.dpml.net. The fundamental difference - no distinction between the people who contribute and the people who run the process. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Apache Community Worldwide -- again
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 October 2004 01:28 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: Apache Community Worldwide -- again David Crossley wrote: on what list can all committers discuss issues without fear of spilling the beans about something that is not yet decided by ASF? None that I know of. There is no private discussion list for committers, unlike [EMAIL PROTECTED] My understanding differs. The community@apache.org mailing list is used by the participants in the Apache Software Foundation to discuss general topics of interest to the foundation. Participation in this list is only available to committers of the Apache Software Foundation. [1] Stephen. [1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/mailinglists.html#foundation-community --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: private mailing list for committers (Was: Apache CommunityWorldwide -- again)
-Original Message- From: Sander Temme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 04 October 2004 05:27 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: private mailing list for committers (Was: Apache CommunityWorldwide -- again) On Oct 3, 2004, at 7:22 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote: list should be private or public and I seem to remember that a vote/poll was taken at that time - and it was my understanding that archives of this list would not be public (consistent with the statement on the ASF pages I referenced above). Here's the vote we took at the time: http://issues.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? [EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=383 (and without public archives I would not have been able to find this). Thanks for posting the clarification - which would puts me in favor of Felipe Leme's suggestion for a private list for committers. Steve. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Style of community building
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 29 September 2004 13:17 To: community@apache.org Subject: Re: Style of community building snip ... how are lessons to be learnt is not from examining past situations and their resolutions? Have a few thoughts I put together which examine the past situation as part of my reply to a public post from Stefano over on the dev mailing list. Seems to me that there maybe something in it that is relevant to the subject of community building (or at least some of the aspect of social and group rules that play into community evolution). http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-devm=109645485530289w=4 Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 September 2004 15:31 To: community@apache.org Cc: 'Apache Board' Subject: Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- [resending, with modifications, due to screwed up cc list the first time] Stephen McConnell wrote: I find this discussion and the usage of terms such as severe lack of respect to be out of place and largely disproportionate with the real topic, substance and events. all right. i disagree, however, at least with the 'out of place' aspect. I received an email from the Chairman (with a specific note that that the message was issue by the Chairman in that capacity). indeed, on rechecking i see that i was working from a false premise. a couple of the addressees were hidden behind my mailer's twisty; yours was one of them. i was mistaken about you having been omitted from the original message, and i withdraw those remarks and humbly apologise for the statements and insinuations i made. Following receipt of the official notification from the Board concerning the Metro Project submission - I contacted Niclas as part of our normal process of coordination. I expressed some opinions and concerns to Niclas on the subject of the notification - including the subject of the reservations and the strongly implied implications or those reservations. A particular concern that I raised was the absence of any supporting justification or explanation for the reservation that was for all intensive purposes an explicit and directed exclusion of my participation in the oversight of a project to which I am committed, engaged and actively contributing. i don't intend to get into the 'bring me a rock' scenario concerning who said what when to justify whichever. all the information is available in the archives. i imagine either sam or brian will post relevant pointers. if they don't, perhaps i will. notwithstanding, there *are* documented incidents leading to the reservation. Thanks - this addresses the center of my concern and I would like you know that I appreciate any actions from yourself, sam, or brian on this subject. What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list simply as a heads-up to each and every committer here that something happened recently that simply was not right. that opinion may or may not reflect actual fact. let us assume for the moment that it does. 'was not right' is also a matter of opinion. what is not a matter of opinion, but is rather a matter of fact, is that niclas quoted a private message in a public forum without consulting the author. attempting to raise awareness by defining a hypothetical case, or even an actual case with the specifics removed, would have been much more acceptable, although there is a slippery slope. quoting a private message without permission isn't acceptable at all. Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of serious reservation concerning his role and potential contribution? possibly, in terms of roles involving representation or social responsibility. this sequence *should* have no effect on opinions concerning his technical ability and contributions. people are people, however. i am dismayed that the private message was exposed the way it was. i am much more concerned that the individual involved apparently doesn't see the action as incorrect. if i felt comfortable that it *did* understand why it was inappropriate, i personally would be glad to regard the incident as a one-time mistake arising from misunderstanding or cultural differences, and most of my concern would evaporate. i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our organization that are patently untrue. Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. to what, specifically? to my admitted-above patently-untrue assertion that you weren't on the initial distribution? Yes. done. Great. something else? Yep - just wanted to say thank you and that you reply was very much appreciated in terms of both substance and style. Stephen. - -- #ken P-|} - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Ken: -Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 September 2004 00:02 you really don't seem to understand. *stephen* wasn't on the distribution list, and yet you checked with him. had he been informed before you did so? and you also failed to bother to even inform, much less get permission from, the person you quoted. or the private distribution to which the message was sent. you just took it on yourself to broadcast it to the world, only bothering to check with someone who was deliberately and explicitly *omitted* from the distribution for reasons sufficient to the sender. I find this discussion and the usage of terms such as severe lack of respect to be out of place and largely disproportionate with the real topic, substance and events. I received an email from the Chairman (with a specific note that that the message was issue by the Chairman in that capacity). The content of the message presented a summary of the meeting of the BOD concerning a proposal that was submitted. The Chairman presented a number of points concerning the discussion by the board - all were pertinent to the subject of a proposal revision and constructive dialog with members of the board has been imitated as a result. However - one item concerned the expression of serious reservations as to my participation as a member of any PMC within Apache. Some of you will not know that the members of the proposed Metro Project nominated Niclas as their choice for chair. My own reasons for supporting Niclas in this capacity is my prior experience in working with him in at least three different ASF projects, his experience and competence on the subject of the project, but first and foremost - his genuine integrity as an individual. Following receipt of the official notification from the Board concerning the Metro Project submission - I contacted Niclas as part of our normal process of coordination. I expressed some opinions and concerns to Niclas on the subject of the notification - including the subject of the reservations and the strongly implied implications or those reservations. A particular concern that I raised was the absence of any supporting justification or explanation for the reservation that was for all intensive purposes an explicit and directed exclusion of my participation in the oversight of a project to which I am committed, engaged and actively contributing. Neither Niclas, I, or others I spoke with immediately following the announcement were able to provide a rationale for this position - however, this is not the subject of concern. Instead - the subject of concern to every committer in Apache is the implications of the recommendation on the open process. Niclas (as our team representative) requested my permission to disclose the information to community@apache.org to which I agreed without reservation or hesitation. In contradiction to some assertions in this thread - my reputation is not the question here (that's already well established). What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list simply as a heads-up to each and every committer here that something happened recently that simply was not right. But beyond this - another darker animal is emerging ... you seem to agree that acceptable behaviour is defined by agreements. very well, let me spell it out: by participating in the apache projects, you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the rules behaviour the organisation considers acceptable. in case it wasn't clear, let me make it so now: one of those is if someone entrusts information to you in confidence, you DO NOT expose it unless legally required or with the permission of the source. Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of serious reservation concerning his role and potential contribution? For the record - the relevant elements of the email header of the notification I received and from which I initiated a dialog with Niclas are included here: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:53:12 -0700 From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our organization that are patently untrue. Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Noel: Community dynamics, evolution, collective management, and how things unfold. Well, it's probably good stuff to document. If on the other-hand you want to paint me as the Dr. Claw, well, your going to have to send me a complete package - the car, the costume, and don't forget the cat! Cheers, Steve. -Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 September 2004 21:58 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon Stephen McConnell wrote: Sure - we talked openly about developer and user attrition. Was that bad? Was it better to stay fragment and unable to really and properly work with other projects as a single community? Yes - attrition comes at a price. Any regrets - sure. Would I do it again given the same circumstances? Probably - yes. Would the outcome be the same? No. You pick up experience along the way and you figure out those things you'd handle differently the next time. To reiterate ... - attrition of users and developers is an acceptable solution to project evolution. - you would probably do the same things again. - you would hope for a different outcome. Is that correct? What do you feel would be different about the outcome? What would you have wanted to be different, and how do you feel it would come from doing the same things? Why would it be different? In any event, I'm logging for for a day or so. Will be curious to read follow ups. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2004 19:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: community@apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon On Thursday 23 September 2004 15:53, Greg Stein wrote: We have significant reservations around including Stephen McConnell on any PMC at the ASF. For the forseeable future, I do not see the Board allowing Stephen to participate at a PMC level. Before I got married - my wife's father had significant reservations around including Stephen McConnell in the family album. That was 20 years ago and I'm proud to say we're happily married, and no reservations. However, almost any morning you can count on the fact that I have significant reservations as to my ability to find my coffee cup. I don't expect my reservations related to cup-hunting to disappear within the foreseeable future, but I do think there is an important semantic difference between the expression of a reservation and the ability to find the cup. It's now 08:44 am - the hunt is on! Cheers, Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As a non-member of the Avalon community, I've noticed that a rift opened up there from far, far away. But as my primary project in the Jakarta Community (Turbine) considers moving closer to Avalon, I'd still be very interested to get the view from both sides. Could some of the Avalon folks maybe state in a few (!) sentences, what is the issue over Avalon / Merlin and the rejected Metro proposal? What we have is a situation where *all* of the active committers within Avalon are committed to one platform, a single product strategy, a shared belief that we are onto some really good things, and a common interest in the development of these ideas, concepts, and products here at Apache. Way back the community voted on this subject and overwhelmingly endorsed a single product strategy, bringing to a definitive end a history of fragmented development communities within Avalon. The community has completely changed as a result, new faces everywhere, the content in Avalon that makes up the Merlin platform together with related build systems, development tools, supporting systems, etc. now represents around than 90% of the current codebase. Based on the experience of building, evolving and delivering successive versions of Merlin, we are now well into a stage where historic notions such as 'framework' are loosing relevance. In its place is a meta-model, slowly but surely taking over the role of container component contract compliance. In the version of Merlin used in Fulcrum we can do things like switch in new runtime systems, plugin new logging solutions, enable dynamic component reloading. But where we heading is the constant running, dynamically up-gradable component management platform. This requires not only pluging in of sub-systems, but also plugin support for the semantic model. At this point - there is no fixed framework. And at this point the role of Merlin in Avalon no longer makes a lot sense. In effect, where we are going is beyond Avalon. However, freedom to pursue these challenges is proving a challenge in and of itself. Members of the Board have opened up lines of communication and it's already clear that there is interest in enabling this, but also concerns from board members over existing users, and naturally - the reverent immutable framework. But all of this IMO is tainted with a historical bias - damage limitation seems to capture more attention then innovation. There is a job ahead of us in turning this perception around. That's going to take patience and perseverance - but in the mean time, we are forging ahead on all fronts. Cheers, Steve. Regards Henning (I do understand that moving out of the ASF is a step that most projects do only very, very reluctantly; not for technical reasons but because a non-ASF project does not get the same (media and public) exposure as an ASF project. (See also: Velocity vs. Freemarker). -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re- fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied - is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it deserves to be on this list of the top five problems. --Michelle Levesque, Fundamental Issues with Open Source Software Development - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You make it sound as if the Board was off on a lark, when the fact is that the situation has all too often discussed in many circles, and the Board has been fairly closely monitoring the project for more than two years. Nor should it have come as a surprise to the person whose identity should have been protected, since he has been made aware of concerns often and privately. I much prefer that such discussions are open, clear, and unambiguous. I can assure you that my reputation is not at stake here. What is at stake is a new community with great ambitions, passion, and a determination to make it happen, here, at Apache, where our history is. snip/ The new work is excellent, and there is a small community of developers who are devoted to it, but in terms of cost to the community, don't disregard the facts. Following their muse, they co-opted the project; determined that the one important piece of the consensus was a unified platform, without regard for the rest of the consensus; and actively and openly spoke of both developer AND USER attrition as a means for as a means for achieving the goal. It got to the point where the bulk of committers walked out, although some eventually came back to form the core of the Excalibur project. So when I see a comment that all of the active committers are committed to one platform, I almost have to laugh. So laugh and have fun. Sure - we talked openly about developer and user attrition. Was that bad? Was it better to stay fragment and unable to really and properly work with other projects as a single community? Yes - attrition comes at a price. Any regrets - sure. Would I do it again given the same circumstances? Probably - yes. Would the outcome be the same? No. You pick up experience along the way and you figure out those things you'd handle differently the next time. Cheers, Steve. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
Joshua Slive wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Tetsuya Kitahata wrote: Nope. I have to resign. Well, thanks for your contribution Tetsuya. I think it is a worthwhile project, and I hope you reconsider or someone picks it up. I do believe that there have been some people getting a little too picky about policies. In general in the Apache world, and especially in the case of the documentation, he who does the work should get to make the decisions. Suggesting that the newsletter be distributed in a particular format is perfectly acceptable. Insisting on it goes too far, unless there is a serious infrastructure concern. (Actually, I do agree that it would be better to simply send the link by email. But if Tetsuya thinks it is important to send the whole thing, I see no problem in letting him make that decision.) +1 Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Inappropriate use of announce@
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: I very much enjoyed the hard work that Tetsuya put into the newsletter and I'm very sad to see him step down because of such puny reasons as to which mailing list this newsletter should be sent. Me too on both points. Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: establish a trust relationship (Re: missing signatures)
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Ahhh. Now, there are no *ASF members* in Japan (Maybe, this goes for other Asian countries), so the things can be easily inconsistent. There are other ASF Committers in Japan. Lief Mortenson, for example, the author of the Java Wrapper and frequent Avalon contributor. I assume that you are referring to geographic location, and not ethnic/national origin, given the context of your comment. would that be an aggragate conext or a meta context? (you know - this is important) -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Follow the example
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ceki Gülcü [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 18/09/2003 11:55:43 PM: What can be done to fix this? Many thanks in advance, There's no coverage on some of the top level projects you mention, e.g. no sessions on Ant, Avalon, James Maven. Dion - I think we are going to have to get a suite and shift you up to marketing! ;-) Cheers, Steve. Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Follow the example
Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dion - I think we are going to have to get a suite and shift you up to marketing! Is Dion staying that long? Cool. I just knew that he'd be rooming with us at the Software Summit conference at the end of October. So I think you should double your budget ... this guy has all of the signs of a candidate! Steve. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
David N. Welton wrote: Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What I wonder is how many of those authors/copyright-holders have actually read the GPL and understand what it really means. -- justin Probably not the details, but on the other hand, the concept of the GPL is clever, and the idea of 'not getting ripped off' appeals to people. The appeal thing here is questionable. I was in a meeting yesterday with the CTO of a very very large system integration group and we were discussing open source. The CTO in question had lots of positive things to say about open source along with two problems: 1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers because this means they loose budget - it is simply better to place an order for 200k or 800k for a product with support because if and when the shit hits the fan, it is transferable, and your department maintains its budget 2. on the pragmatic front - open-source means you have to have the resources to be able to continue independently (technically and legally) irrespective of the direction taken by the majority. And this is where the crucial aspect comes in - if I have to maintain a product that has open source dependencies - and if the open source base changes in a manner incompatible with by usage, I have to continue to maintain the base independently of the OS community - this means a fork with all of the comensurate technical overhead - not to mention the potential legal consequences - legal consequence means problems - problems mean expenses and internal escalation - i.e. - back to the question - is it better to go with a commercial solution (a.k.a. problem transference) or take responsibility (a.k.a. internal responsibility)? Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: How BSD hurts OpenSource
Andrew Savory wrote: Hi, On Wed, 14 May 2003, Stephen McConnell wrote: 1. open-source is free and that is a problem for department managers because this means they loose budget Fair comment up to a point - but there are vendors of open source software out there, so there are ways around this (although admittedly, not nearly enough vendors yet). 2. on the pragmatic front - open-source means you have to have the resources to be able to continue independently [...] back to the question - is it better to go with a commercial solution (a.k.a. problem transference) or take responsibility (a.k.a. internal responsibility)? The fallacy in this argument is assuming that commercial software will never go in a direction that's incompatible with your requirements, and that the commercial company will always be around to support your needs. In fact, what often happens is that the commercial company (or 'proprietary software vendor') tends to release bug fixes labelled as upgraded software, stuffed with irrelevant new 'features' to entice you to buy. This software often heads in a direction you don't want to go in, but you are forced to upgrade by the need to ensure continual support (and the previous product is rapidly dropped from the commercial company's list of supported products). It's a catch-22 situation. The only difference is that the proprietary / commercial solutions tend to be wrapped up and sugar-coated in management friendly 'upgrade/new feature' lingo. I'd opt for internal responsbility every time, but I'm a massochist ;-) Me too! :-) So what are the things that strengthen the OS proposition: 1. lowering the barrier to engagement 2. reducing the risk (technically and legally) I think the Apache license is doing the right thing in lowering the risk legally - simply because it enables liberty in usage (irrespective of any underlying agenda). Reducing technical risk is a community issue - all of the usual stuff concerning roadmaps, release management and so on. Lowering the technical barrier is something I figure we have a long we to go on. But again, Apache is well positioned top address this via the infrastructure team together with new developments in packaging and service management - but that's another topic! Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service. http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Maven and community
Just for reference - I'm somewhat surprised at the flack handed out to Jason. He and the other Maven committers are doing an out-and-out brilliant job of bringing together the next generation. My feeling is that these guys are being squeezed unnecessarily - but don't ask me why because I don't know. They have built a active and dynamic community, they are about to change the way a lot of us doing things, and in my opinion - they deserve our out-and-out support (across board, comunity, and project levels). Cheers, Steve. Noel J. Bergman wrote: Dion, The reason for this challenge is simple: to demonstrate the the antipathy towards other ASF efforts is damaging not only to the ASF, but to Maven itself. 'antipathy' == 'A strong feeling of aversion or repugnance'. However you want to label it, Jason's harshly phrased statements yesterday regarding collaboration with other ASF projects (and people) expressed an attitude that some people, including myself, obviously didn't view positively. In fairness, my reaction is influenced as much by my views on software development as by his words. Nor did I miss his somewhat contrite reply to Ken Coar. I would hope that his comments are not representative of Maven. I would prefer to believe that his comments are not even representative of himself. You know me well enough to know that I view collaboration as the efficient reuse of expertise, creativity and resources towards the synergistic development of the best result. No matter how right I think I am, I could be wrong about something; no matter how wrong I think someone else is, there could be the seed of a really good idea there if I am willing to give it further exploration after shrugging off the first reaction to dismiss it. Usually there is an amalgam that is better than the original pure ideas. A development tool exists for the purpose of servicing other projects. I viewed Sam's comments as expressing the concern that if personalities were to get in the way of collaborating to produce something that better serves other projects, then that would be damaging. With Ant, the ASF set the standard (for better or worse) for Java build tools. With Maven, that is extended, enhanced, embedded to handle web-based project management. You said that there is a great deal of synergy between Ant and Maven. It is natural to feel that these are related projects, and that collaboration would not only be beneficial, but highly desired by all parties. The antagonistic response, with neither provocation nor justification, was disconcerting to say the least. It is unsurprising then to have concerns regarding a productive relationship with an entity exhibiting that attitude. Your reply that the workload of one PMC having to oversee both projects being too high to do properly came across as completely differently in character. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: Alright, here you go. Get it out of your systems flamebait degree=total so I hear 3.3 was a total waste of time and that 4.0 was the best thing ever and that 4.0 is way faster than 3.3. /flamebait flamebait degree=total mode=silly So I hear 4.0 was a big evil conspiricy on the part of Sun via Craig McClanahan who is really a drone for the borg and Scott M is actually the Hive Queen with a holigraphic field around him to make her look human. I hear 3.3 was the rightous product of REAL apache people. /flamebait Though I could be wrong... Actually - I think you *are* wrong. :-) Reason is that this really should not be taking about Tomcat (because Tomcat is a community, not a product - silly people like me figure that out when they download the latest and greatest stable version and discover later that Tomcat != product, instead Tomcat == directory-of-spec-implementations - umm, let me go back and what version I have - a.k.a. product confusion). What this discussion should be about is a framework we are obliged to live with because this is this brand management thing - not a discussion on a particular flame. At the end of the day - getting a bunch of committers to get their heads together on brand is a painful experience - UNLESS - you provide incentives to maintain a brand. How do you do that? You create a downside that is sufficiently unattractive that people have to work together to sort things out. The downside of forcing re-branding is a significant downside. Its just like forking - but heavier - forking just means that you have to work your but off to build the community, but re-branding means investing a lot more time in brand recognition and brand loyalty - and loosing a lot more relative to what exists in terms of public perception. People actually do think about the downsides of possible actions before taking particular actions. These downsides are weighed against the overhead of solving a problem though collaboration and other positive good sounding stuff that we like to talk about. So before you tell me off - keep in mind that up-sides and downsides provide real people with a sense of perspective. Without perspective, well, you just don't get the depth. ;-) Cheers, Steve. -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Jeff Turner wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 04:05:24AM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: ... More than anything else, the fact that two different codebases were *released* with the same name at the same time, pissed many people off (myself included) and created a lot of problems in the users. Like? How many users do you see complaining because they have a choice? How many users have downloaded the latest stable release? Oh, bye the way - what is that the product version number I should recommend ? :-) Cheers, Steve. i have seen a few -- a very few, but greater than zero -- messages sent to the main apache address that indicated some confusion about this. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Re: [VOTE] Openness
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: VOTE 1: would you like to make it possible for non-committers to read this mail list thru a web archive? [X] +1 yes, let's make it readable [ ] 0 don't know/don't care [ ] -1 no, let's keep it private - o - VOTE 2: would you like to make it possible for non-committers to fully subscribe to this mail list? [X] +1 yes, let's open it to everyone [ ] 0 don't know/don't care [ ] -1 no, let's keep it for committers only -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Re: idiot.html
Kurt Schrader wrote: On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote: 10/29/2002 6:33:40 AM, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ha, ha. i see the humour. however, someone seeing that on an official apache web site is going to think it represents the overall apache viewpoint. i personally don't particularly care to be labelled by it. should the apache web sites contain 'professional' (as in 'professionalism') content? if so, does this page apply? Ah, well, it's not visible. None of the other pages link to it. I'm guessing Jon mailed people the URL as a list moderator. For further reference you might also want to check out: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jon.html Nice shades! -Kurt - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
Re: [Ant nudge STATUS] Better than we thought...
Andrew C. Oliver wrote: well principally you should be interested in this communication. Another PRO... more opportunity for ant committers to become recognized and achieve membership. .. um, you say that like there is an end-gain An honor more like. . Plus the opportunity to have more influence in/benefit from the most influential software development organization ever. Certainly this involves responsibility. Few things worth anything don't. Ok ... lets take this a little step further - what are the reponsibilities that you are referring to? It's one of the little things I havn't been able to figure out yet. If you don't feel that waythen I guess why are you here? is a good question. My questions are more aligned with reaching an understanding of the big picture - I'm not asking from the point of view of personal membership - I'm much more interested in well, lets call it understanding the social model in Jakarta ;-). Cheers, Steve. To write code isn't good enough. You can do that on sourceforge. then again this may be the effect of the real system for committership... (fine...apply your patches yourself if you don't think I do it fast enough ;-)) I'm not on the ant list but I would be definaterly keen to see such a proposal cross posted to community@ yes. or just moved there. That would be cool! Cheers, Steve. Cheers, Steve. -Andy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Stephen J. McConnell OSM SARL digital products for a global economy mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.osm.net
