Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 03:18:36PM -0500, 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... -Andy :-D ROTFL I can just picture the marquis in LV next week... ApacheCon 2002 Improv proudly presents for the first time in LV, Andy flamebait Oliver Glenn
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: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
Costin Manolache wrote: So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev. I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other. the tomcat developers are not all that matter, though. users matter (it sounds as though they're mostly happy, though -- of course, according to the reports of tomcat developers grin/). and other asf communities matter. In the end we have a far better community and a lot more tolerance and understanding. again, that may be the case within the tomcat community. it sounds as though there's some friction at the interface between that community and other parts (and possibly the whole) of the asf community. all asf projects need to remember that they're part of the asf and share the asf brand, and obviously should not do anything that will damage that brand, and thereby negatively affect the asf and the other communities within it. the shared brand is 'apache', not 'jakarta', not 'soap', not 'httpd', not 'xml'. for instance (and i'm not suggesting this has happened or will happen), no project should do anything that will result in a user saying, 'oh, i tried apache foo and it was so confused and messed up and support was so bad that i'm not the least bit interested in trying apache bar.' we need to build 'better communities' and 'more tolerance' inter-project as well as intra-project.
The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division.
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
First time I've ever seen it discussed. Was an interesting discussion for a while until I hit the point of: Okay, go write this up on a webpage so it makes sense. On Tue, 12 Nov 2002, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev. I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other. IMHO most ( or all ) tomcat developers agree that both code bases had some good and some bad parts. I also think most of the tomcat community is behind 5.0, which is a merge of ideas and code from both 3.3 and 4.x. And I think users were very well served, and the outcome is one of the best possible. In the end we have a far better community and a lot more tolerance and understanding. Costin On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 08:28, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The Apache Jakarta Law (Scientific?)
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... -Andy :-D Costin Manolache wrote: So far it seems Stefano ( who is not currently a very active tomcat developer) is pissed off by the decisions made on tomcat-dev. I don't see too many tomcat developers flaming each other. IMHO most ( or all ) tomcat developers agree that both code bases had some good and some bad parts. I also think most of the tomcat community is behind 5.0, which is a merge of ideas and code from both 3.3 and 4.x. And I think users were very well served, and the outcome is one of the best possible. In the end we have a far better community and a lot more tolerance and understanding. Costin On Tue, 2002-11-12 at 08:28, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: The Apache Jakarta Law: Any discussion regarding Apache Jakarta will eventually degrade into a discussion about the Tomcat 3.3/4.0 issue, often including a full re-analysis of the events, revision of the history, and sometimes degrading into a full re-enactment of the emotionally charged flamewar that engulfed the Tomcat project at the time. Often even those who don't often participate in such interesting uses of time will even match the judgement logic necessary to participate in such a conversation. I hope one day my Law is proven false. Perhaps if those involved were to take this on to a wiki and document all about it, the different view points and lessons learned, opposing lessons learned etc, we could one day make this law obsolete at least. -Andy Joe Schaefer wrote: Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] I believe it was a mistake to allow two different codebases to share the same name. I'm not convinced that having two codebases is necessarily a mistake. So far the discussion here seems to have centered around the concerns of the existing tomcat developers. I'd like to know what the tomcat users (ie. the future tomcat developers) think of the 3.x/4.x division. - 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]
