Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: -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. Yes, Stephen, you are right: 9 directors, 120 members, 10 PMC members and 200 subscribers to this list are wrong and you are right. You are so right. Oh my god, you are so right, please, please, take us in your new wonderful world, please, take me with you! I so love your magic wisdom and the fact that no matter what you have an answer for everything and your world is so clean and perfect and shine [john lennon's imagine playing in the back] please, please, take me with you, I was wrong, all of us where wrong... you know how to make software, you know how to make people unite for a cause, you know how to bring money and experience and knowledge to people so that they will be grateful to you and send you good vibes... please, please, don't go away, stay with us, become the Executieve Director and lead us to the next millenium and teach us your wisdom, humility and balance. -- Stefano. - 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
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. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - 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
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 11:19, Stephen McConnell wrote: Greg holds to the opinion that the appointed Chair is the PMC and that the members are simply an artificial construct. Before anyone is requesting the quote where Steve get that notion from; http://www.apache.org/~niclas/irc/2004-05-15.022554.txt which is an IRC session regarding the fork/transfer/something of Phoenix to James, via an SVN import into Avalon's SVN space. Everyone is aware that this IRC session is logged and available to the public (before people hammer for that.). Following quotes from Greg Stein (and one McConnell); (12:10:11) gstein: mcconnell: aaron *is* the PMC ((12:46:05) gstein: the members of the PMC is an artificial construct created by the Chair 12:48:15) gstein: mcconnell: the board expects a PMC to operate in a consensus fashion, (12:48:38) gstein: but when a PMC *cannot* operate in a consensus fashion, then the Board leaves it to the Chair to figure out the right solution. (12:52:47) gstein: if Aaron wants to ask the PMC, then he can. (12:57:17) mcconnell: then don't ask aaron for an opinion because aaron has not talked with his PMC MEMBERS (12:57:29) gstein: mcconnell: doesn't matter to me. that's up to him. In my personal opinion that also seems to suggest that committer and/or PMC vetoes are also of no interest. The PMC Chair is an ultimate decision maker (at least in the view of Greg), who from time to time decides how to deal with disagreements. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 05:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Regardless of whether there was any 'right' or 'wrong' position, it appears that there were irreducible differences. I only recall one side expressing a willingness to compromise. My memory may be imperfect, though. Now, if I have no sense of collaboration, taking care of the Legacy and compromise (in this case balancing my time between Excalibur vs Merlin), then I have no clue what you guys expect from people. And I have no clew why you think I'm speaking specifically about you, nor why you're dragging 'legacy' and 'collaboration' into your reply to me. ISTR some issues about ignored vetos and vetos without sufficient justification. (Don't know what ISTR stands for) 'I Seem To Recall' The only veto I know of that has been in dispute, is Leo Simons veto against the new site, which in defense I say; 1. It came in late, long after the change was executed. 2. His issue was regarding the change of wording in the specification of the AF4.2, which he claimed was an incompatible change for component authors. 3. In the midst of that clarification, heaps of people stepped in with other issues, murking what is on the table of a veto and what is not; There is no statute of limitations on vetos. There is no deadline. When a veto is made, it must be supported by technical justification. There are two ways to deal with a veto: 1) Address the concerns and get the vetoer to rescind it; or 2) let it stand and the vetoed aspect stays out (getting removed if necessary) of the code. It can't get much clearer than that. The agenda was to promote Merlin into a platform for component oriented architecture. When that was considered being against approx half the PMC and some additional developers, we started the process of taking Merlin to TLP, but the Excalibur group just needed to be better, and by throwing in a second proposal, at least one member of the Board intervened privately, and asked us to drop the Merlin TLP and forge ahead with the new vision. Now, I call that a mandate. Please clarify what you mean by 'mandate' here. That the board was mandating that you drop the Merlin TLP idea? Mandate that the Board, or parts thereof, thought it was better to spin the Legacy into a new project and let Avalon grow into a Merlin-based community and the visions we had. That's nothing like a mandate in any of its definitions. You appear to be using heavily loaded terminology to excuse something, and using it incorrectly at that. Someone privately makes a request, and you're interpreting it as an official position of all (or a majority) of the board? Yet, Excalibur TLP without me and Steve was manna from heaven for this group, but it was definately a matter of balkanization along people and not technology. Something Mr Coar would never agree to. One thing I don't agree to is people putting words in my mouth. Please cease doing so. So you want the quote? You have been hammering me before for publicizing private mails quote timezone=UTC+0800 On Monday 27 September 2004 22:37, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: snip/ So let's cut straight to the chase; What are the severe reservations that you seem to have against the Metro proposal? Just spill it out so we can solve it :o) it appears to me to be a balkanisation based on people rather than on technology. /quote That was the only reason you stated against the Metro proposal. I can accept that never is a bit strong, but I can't interpret your response in any other way. Then you're being uncommonly obtuse, and apparently only to suit your own purposes. 'I have a serious reservation about this because it appears to be xxx' is a lng way from 'I will never agree to this because it is definitely xxx.' And evidently you did absolutely nothing to 'solve' (your word) or otherwise address my reservation -- either that or you're hauling out my remark sans context in order to support your current point. Either way, you put words in my mouth, and I requested that you stop. Dredging out personal email (which, yes, you didn't bother to ask about first, but in *this case* I don't mind) doesn't make that acceptable. So this handwave doesn't excuse you claiming that I would 'never accept' something. And I ask again that you stop. Phrasing it 'which I don't think Mr Coar would ever accept' is okey, because it makes it clear that you're stating your *guess* of how I would react. As far as it goes, I continue to stand by that reservation. IMHO, setting up a TLP because the would-be participants can't get along with the other people in their current TLP -- or those people can't get along with them -- is not a good path. Among other things, it could give both sets of people the idea that being fractious and divisive is acceptable behaviour. - --
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:41, Noel J. Bergman wrote: You seem to keep forgetting that I supported Merlin havine a home at the ASF. Very much appreciated :o) , as I know you normally saw through all the BS that was part of the Avalon stage. 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. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: 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. Out of simple curiousity, what would this accomplish? I am not being flip. It seems clear that there are aspects on which all the players are unlikely to ever agree, so this would seem likely to prolong the vocal non-agreement. The Avalon project has been shut down; parts have moved outside the ASF and are under active development there. What is there that requires that this become the Thread That Wouldn't Die, and why? If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcegXZrNPMCpn3XdAQHPTQP/cMGXabvnlqzYZvLjkHpZFhf1+gGiwph1 ZuvXJ5/UYnPq+hWt4RRqnLeBl0SC7JMLN9WXzGc/HZYaQ5k3qBN8B8JLZyGkH1Om z+wRbO/Zy7YswvyJ4vIg4xlHut0OXef+Sx7ePFSUQ0T3OAeIflhI+o9Gs5GaMERu idtb9YAB5No= =fxy0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQceiAprNPMCpn3XdAQFiSAQArJh8/1MVGH/yPzsaS7M9gjEtkv/pyvaB L4h5ndDHLAKJaVpNG53Izlkq4H+GMsWvP/TZ4v0s3xA6lAHMoatwAjrvpxG1wgDZ k5EkiXNGBLxOxIddfZYygbnqOAm0qvdmRO4vpX/nN+vPB9APoOFKGeLzPP+ru8KC 0/p/wEfDraM= =N2QT -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 12:09, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: 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. ( On PMC list == not in mail archives. But that is beside the point. ) It is a single occurrence in time, and in my book everyone is allowed to make occassional mistakes. You make them, I make them, everyone makes them. I think the difference of Hey, Steve that is not acceptable! warning, to a categorical character assassination across the ASF is a bit much. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 12:02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: On Tuesday 21 December 2004 07:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: 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. Out of simple curiousity, what would this accomplish? That FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment, against its own contributors, for unknown reasons, possibly unintentionally, by an unnamed, possibly unknown, person or a group of persons. And that FUD is being amplified by everyone else into facts, and *I* definately don't like these kind of patterns. If you bring accusations to the table, back them up with some examples. That is what I am asking for. If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. I think there is procedural value of walking through what have happened. A bit of transparency among how this organization is run vs how it states it is run. I would hope that the Board has an interest in that scrutiny of its actions is regularly exercised, to clear its honorable members of any misdoings, doesn't it? Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 11:50, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Then you're being uncommonly obtuse obtuse? (is that insult or compliment? otoh getting the true meaning from a dictionary is probably not a good idea :o( ) 'I have a serious reservation about this because it appears to be xxx' is a lng way from 'I will never agree to this because it is definitely xxx.' And evidently you did absolutely nothing to 'solve' (your word) or otherwise address my reservation -- either that or you're hauling out my remark sans context in order to support your current point. Since you ask me so harshly to keep under the lid what the exchange was in the coming mails, I can apparently not clarify where the 'solution path' led to, can I? As far as it goes, I continue to stand by that reservation. IMHO, setting up a TLP because the would-be participants can't get along with the other people in their current TLP -- or those people can't get along with them -- is not a good path. Among other things, it could give both sets of people the idea that being fractious and divisive is acceptable behaviour. Yet IMNSHO the establishment of the Excalibur TLP was more balkanization along people than technology, than the establishment of a Merlin/Metro TLP. So why did that happen? Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. --- Noel - 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
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. [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. 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. a committee should have the ability to remove a chair The PMC lacks the authority to do so. Rather, the Chair has the authority to remove members of the PMC. The Chair does not report to the Committee. The Chair reports to the Board and ultimately to the Membership. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:31:03 +0100, Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I've got a better idea ... let's not play the game (any more) at all. The decision was made (and I, as an Apache member, consider it to be in *my* best interest, as well as in the best interest of the ASF). It's done. It's over. It's now an off topic conversation for this list. If you guys had put the same amount of energy into your software that you put into your arguments, the world really would have been a better place as a result of your efforts. Craig McClanahan - 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
Stephen McConnell wrote: 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. Actually, I was just checking some of the archives. Aaron may have coined it in this context. Or he just quoted me from a message I don't have handy. It doesn't really matter. I'm not sure what events you feel I'm rationalizing, since I was one of the increasingly few who was interested in seeing Merlin have a home at the ASF. Let's stop this hiding behind private lists. Assuming that no one objected to making the content public, you'd have to find someone with the time to vet the archive contents. I have no idea who has such time. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Niclas Hedhman wrote: Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: 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. Out of simple curiousity, what would this accomplish? That FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment, against its own contributors, for unknown reasons, possibly unintentionally, by an unnamed, possibly unknown, person or a group of persons. And that FUD is being amplified by everyone else into facts, and *I* definately don't like these kind of patterns. It isn't present, so please stop spreading it. Rather send patches to the www.apache.org/foundation/ and /dev/ procedural documents which you feel are obscure. That is the normal community way. --David - 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
On Dec 20, 2004, at 10:39 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:31:03 +0100, Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I've got a better idea ... let's not play the game (any more) at all. The decision was made (and I, as an Apache member, consider it to be in *my* best interest, as well as in the best interest of the ASF). It's done. It's over. It's now an off topic conversation for this list. If you guys had put the same amount of energy into your software that you put into your arguments, the world really would have been a better place as a result of your efforts. A huge +1. If anyone taking part in this thread thinks they're going to change anyone else's opinion about what happened around Avalon, they're massively deluded. Take it to alt.talk.wank for crissakes. -Fitz - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Le 21 déc. 04, à 08:21, Brian W. Fitzpatrick a écrit : Take it to alt.talk.wank for crissakes. +1 -Bertrand smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 05:39, Craig McClanahan wrote: On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:31:03 +0100, Stephen McConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I've got a better idea ... let's not play the game (any more) at all. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/quotes#qt0077889 Can't agree more. Can we just lay this thread to rest? Stephen and Niclas can open up www.avalonconspiracy.com and the rest goes on with life. Regards Henning -- 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 07:21:09AM +0100, Stephen McConnell wrote: ... 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? It would not establish the necessary paths of responsibility and oversight necessary for the proper and legal operation of the ASf. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Dec 21, 2004, at 3:23 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 05:02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: If there's a reasonable reason, cool. Otherwise, maybe we can move on. There'll be no 'winner' here. But we could proclaim Stephen and Niclas winner. Maybe this thread would end then and then we all would win... Henning - thanks - this is much better than ruining another Roxy Music song for me... :D geir -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Niclas Hedhman wrote: The PMC Chair is an ultimate decision maker Please check the bylaws for the normal situation. But -WHEN- things break down, when there is no consensus and there is no clear ability to reach any conclusion and it is in the interest of the foundation because damage is done then the board expects the chair to act as an officer of the foundation and clean things up. Note that at this point the board has already been made well aware of the sitution and is actively monitoring the chair. Note that at -every- step in that process anyone can appeal to the board to bring things to our attention, to get us to suspend things, replace the chair, whatever. And you can count on us to act very swiftly and without hesitation is truly damaging things are happening which affect the ASF as a whole (say when knowingly shipping code without a license). However be warned that in most cases our only options are effectively to suspend the entire project. In the Avalon case we did no such drastic things but waited for months (well years really) for the community to get a grip, consensus. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: A practice of asking people to leave, or trying to drive them away, because they don't agree with you is not acceptable. It is a single occurrence in time, and in my book everyone is allowed to make occassional mistakes. You make them, I make them, everyone makes them. I think the difference of Hey, Steve that is not acceptable! warning, to a categorical character assassination across the ASF is a bit much. No, I don't think it was a single occurrence. And there you go again with another highly charged term. What's interesting is that *you're* the one that keeps associating Stephen's name with this stuff. The only time I mentioned him by name was when I was correcting the mistake about authority. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcgeGZrNPMCpn3XdAQEX3gQA3tcndccabAQ0V1BdUc75iGjwzv36hAuL kCp+eViD+klUy6Dq0uKiQjTVP1RkPl9fkY2tL0nMDVHfDFerlRQJPyUVfJ+iG/H/ EfuF5u3o2Bd61BAn4kptYzrUdaTdVyOhyTD77fh4XV1OFTDUQveIlk07zIHn1vnb W7dW2kQAQ0I= =9cnj -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: That FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment, against its own contributors, for unknown reasons, possibly unintentionally, by an unnamed, possibly unknown, person or a group of persons. And that FUD is being amplified by everyone else into facts, and *I* definately don't like these kind of patterns. The only FUD I see here is that which you yourself are spreading. I and others are stating facts and personal opinions; you are the one waving around the conspiracy theories. I think there is procedural value of walking through what have happened. A bit of transparency among how this organization is run vs how it states it is run. How it is run and how it is stated to have been run are one and the same. That's my opinion, and apparently the opinion of the vast majority of people involved and observing. Just because the results don't align with anyone's personal preferences does not make that equation false, nor invalidate either one componment or the other. I would hope that the Board has an interest in that scrutiny of its actions is regularly exercised, to clear its honorable members of any misdoings, doesn't it? Scrutiny, yes. Repeated baseless polemic is not interesting. Scrutiny involves examining something to see what's going on. It does not mean going in with preconceived notions and the intent to do nothing but find information supportive of them. You don't seem the least bit interested in scrutinising anything. You seem solely interested in trying to convince the readership that your view is the only true one, and that your desired outcome didn't come about because it was thwarted by some evil cabal of secret conspirators. Maybe that's not what you're trying to do, but it's sure how it's coming across to me. 'Mandate'; 'FUD'; 'character assassination'; the specific situation under discussion being inflated to 'FUD is prevalent in ASF establishment' -- sheesh. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcggnZrNPMCpn3XdAQFD6AP+J+wGAja6Lw+wbel9xbDwppRfKj1OPYjU 7N8yAkDqTiLb3oLuZ15x5s/IYE96j0vHeKHyo6iIHb1Q8RX2byAA5aLs1HpSFyt6 T2xhfFMMb7YF+Rq5L+pOS4J+yq2DtOsuhZDquly4+HOHZQiC7JlF16F6i7MZya5Q bWfHAG7xsY4= =SA41 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: OK - let's play this game but let's do it properly. I don't intend to touch this remark. 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. As has been pointed out, the PMC archives are open to any and all ASF members. They can examine them and draw their own conclusions. If any members do so, and feel that I, Noel, Greg -- or Niclas or Stephen -- or anyone else -- is misrepresenting things, I dearly hope they will speak up and say, 'my examination of the PMC mail archives shows me that the support *x* and don't support *y*.' - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcgiS5rNPMCpn3XdAQHZZwP/WfkbfdUSAmrTaM+WmeIaQMDkaHR1F8sS gdmohwVjJvXi8XrVdAyWB2CzH4nrYtZ3BU1kIImupFpl6gyZOZJsD6Qd4cUrf0Zt SAtrOMvLQ/7TwU1BmEwS1MEveN9HUPE8l30KN6om13zr2OuDTQAxZBDiUvFVCeso QcYoBXdUmFM= =pvu2 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 20:59, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: No, I don't think it was a single occurrence. *I* only know of one such time, in conjunction with Leo Sutic resigning on the basis of People leaving because they don't agree with the majority opinion is acceptable attrition. And there you go again with another highly charged term. Everything else you call hand waving. ;o) What's interesting is that *you're* the one that keeps associating Stephen's name with this stuff. The only time I mentioned him by name was when I was correcting the mistake about authority. Come on, I somehow get the feeling that you are trying to toy me around with your intellect and wit of words. I buy you a beer over that, no problem. I won't drag this on, since you feel like the cat playing with the mouse, so the mouse has now decided eat me, and lays down in front of the cat, awaiting it to loose interest ;o) BUT, I *would* appreciate if you spent some of your intellect looking at the more important stuff raised in this thread under new Subject. Cheers Niclas P.S. Every Sanagendamgagwedweinini on Google refers back to you. Is this some marker to all your doings on the web? -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. There is absolute indisputable evidence of Aaron disregard for these procedures and the opinion of the PMC. Lets' not even argue about that. I believe there may have been disagreement between Aaron and some members of the PMC. Certainly not a majority, in which case the statement 'Aaron disregarded the opinion of the PMC' is just a handwave. If the entire PMC wanted a different approach taken, or even a majority did, then perhaps your assertion migh be consodered to have some validity. In addition, 'disregard' means 'ignore' -- which is not the same as 'considering but not choosing to accept.' So I *do* dispute your claims. 'Let's not argue' ? Then let's stop asserting controversial positions and saying they're fact and not worth arguing about. 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. If I believed there was something improper here that should be prevented in the future, aye. Since I don't, then defending the ASF, and the positions taken which I consider correct and valid, is certainly preferable to *not* defending them and letting assertions I consider rubbish to prevail unchallenged and by default. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcglvprNPMCpn3XdAQHibQP/fqSwoVRXcgcOVotP2nprlHd/TPbenhop hcJTFA1I/wzQxsNHpYCfeugzcQsLfBLNwGxl3g4iiFOUMb+me+kuRbJyy12ej7Nd eeBKcaBAW8JiOaMlSGaJPWsrRFlu8X/iEolaVMk6lrs7N8nB2eyrDnuaeR90RUGi fpq3v8j171c= =Hkmc -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 21:39, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: (I don't see any new thread yet.) Same thread, new Subject Subject = Requesting clarification in ByLaw text. -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - 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
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, but I'm a board member, I voted for pushing Avalon over the side, and wonder why you believe that we could invert the oversight structure? Would the membership then be accountable to the board? We are structured to provide demonstrable oversight of the organization on behalf of the membership. We are accountable to the membership. We are elected by the membership, and can be thrown out, singly or en masse, by the membership. To that end, the board is charged with establishing PMCs, which are managed by an officer of the corporation, the PMC Chair. This person has the right to make decisions on behalf of the corporation (being an officer) that he or she considers to be in the best interest of the corporation. Where's the problem? geir (For the record, I support the actions of the board in this matter, and specifically, Greg's explanation of how things work...) -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
-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. - -- #kenP-)} 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I realize that this is little more than a filibuster, and I probably should be smacked for feeding *this* troll *smack* Stephen. Excellent, Geir! Reponding to Stephen, you 'should be smacked for feeding the troll.' Stephen himself smacked you. Ergo, Stephen evidently agrees that you're feeding a troll, and, since you were reponding to him, he's the one trolling. ROTFLMAO! grin - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQch4zprNPMCpn3XdAQFU2AQAge0bLCMS6ScqzIIHzRUrhOKnFEfhTXYd WOC/axZyODxMDQYET6nYwZqE5hu8sGH5DOwyk5pIADPd6oC9YjeAn8i64NnWMAtD CisVLQhe47cnR3yFIpzcaERhIHOGIKkh7lvwWapNSIPgkjmDz6bomdwQvSgSRjdj 7DMlvYpa1J8= =qDFJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- - 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
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. Stephen, As one of the usually-silent members of the ASF, I take exception to what you have said in most of this thread. If there is anything wrong with the policies and procedures of the ASF, it is that Avalon was not shut down in 2001 or before. The board tried and tried and tried to stay out of the problems, hoping that the Avalon PMC would self-correct. This did not happen. Avalon was shut down. IMHO, it should have happened long before you became a major player in Avalon. Avalon has historically forgot about the 'users' part of the community, and that is something that I am not willing to let continue. I fully support the decisions made by the Avalon PMC to shut the project down. I find it a bit ironic that a 'perfect framework' project takes on a named based on a mythically perfect community, and the community is anything but. I would 'commend and applaud' your acceptance that there is an equal and opposite viewpoint to yours on this issue. I also believe that the multiple opinions out there cannot be reconciled. I am willing to let it go at that, as there is no clear direction forward, since forward has a dozen meanings in this context. So why don't we drop it? Scott Sanders - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
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. consent by attrition -- 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 03:54, Scott Sanders wrote: If there is anything wrong with the policies and procedures of the ASF, it is that Avalon was not shut down in 2001 or before. I have spent most of the evening reading mails pre-Avalon TLP and especially the period around the TLP was formed, and I must agree the Scott. It was infected way back. I would 'commend and applaud' your acceptance that there is an equal and opposite viewpoint to yours on this issue. That has been identified and is acknowledged. I am now asking the question that there is a disparity between the way Greg explains how it works and the way projects operates. I have for instance brought up the PMC ByLaws issue, which doesn't exist but many projects have. I also believe that the multiple opinions out there cannot be reconciled. I am willing to let it go at that, as there is no clear direction forward, since forward has a dozen meanings in this context. So why don't we drop it? I have dropped Avalon out of the picture, that is history. I learned that being a member of the PMC is not necessarily what you think it is. Why not make the roles clear? Why not make sure that PMCs who has ByLaws, take those down and replace with Operational Procedures and Practices, which accurately describes the chain of command that *are* in place at project level, but barely mentioned anywhere? Why not make sure that no more TLPs are created with a boiler text, speaking of these project bylaws? If everyone thinks this is at all not necessary, then fine do nothing about it, let the descrepancy continue to exist, and I'll predict similar problems sooner, rather than later, in the future. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
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. Rather, you are not willing to see that despite the ASF's utopian ideals, we recognize in our legal construct that things may not always have a utopian existence, and we provide for handling such (happily uncommon) cases. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. - -- #kenP-(} 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 iQCVAwUBQciNtJrNPMCpn3XdAQG7LQP9FZ6LRQNv3kd/Bj/1S9ilsDgoykkoFnpD +GNxdjgGilmAvUkhjscKM9/vr4SCczE0Dfbz69MEjKg8k5BQ9NdYl4z+N9iTyyJn A/zSHpbNIS8Ok3nNslo/V12TR67T7xBDNKP40gmiRaYQITjDC+0boniAYEMa4sYU GUnRYwEsTIE= =3ywN -END PGP SIGNATURE- - 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: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: 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. 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? Stephen, This is a straw man argument, because this is completely unrelated to my primary point, which was that nobody had malicious intentions. It also implies that had the board allowed you to create your TLC or Aaron hadn't shutdown Avalon, James would have had a better set of dependencies. But I'll play along for a moment. Projects have layers of responsibility. You, as a primary actor in the Avalon community, failed and are largely to blame for James' dependency situation. Since you failed, Aaron had a responsibility as PMC chair to do something, and he should be sainted for what he did. Had Aaron failed, the board would had the opportunity to act, and had we reached that point, I could have made a judgement on whether the nefarious they were taking care of the James community. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man] Can we start a new mailing list called [EMAIL PROTECTED] and somehow redirect all avalon-related emails to that? -- 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
[fixed-width font required] Serge, I disagree with your assessment that You [Steve], as a primary actor in the Avalon community, failed... 1. Steve is accused of becoming the primary actor of late, when the other primary actors, like Peter Donald, Berin Loritsch, Nicola Ken Barozzi, Paul Hammant, Stefano Mazzocchi (I probably left a few out), had left, i.e. towards the later part of 2003. 2. So, let's re-examine the history of WHEN the James entropy sets in, i.e. what has been 'killed' at which point in time; Dates in parenthesis, is the last trace I can find of it. +++ means possibly not rebuildable from source, as I have not been able to locate the source directories in CVS history, only deleted Jars in the Phoenix project. Prior to Mid-2003 (i.e. before I was heavily involved) excalibur-baxter-1.0a.jar DEAD+++ (27 Dec 2002) phoenix-client.jar DEAD+++ ( 4 Apr 2003 ) phoenix-bsh-commands.jarDEAD ( 2 Mar 2003 ) excalibur-threadcontext-1.0.jar DEAD+++ (28 Feb 2003) excalibur-containerkit-1.0.jar DEAD+++ (27 Dec 2002) excalibur-extension-1.0a.jarDEAD+++ (28 Feb 2003) These were repackaged into a compatibility deliverable, somewhere prior to mid-2003, and handed over to the Excalibur TLP under a excalibur-compatibility artifact/jar; excalibur-cli-1.0.jar REPLACE BY COMMONS CLI excalibur-collections-1.0.jar DEAD excalibur-io-1.1.jarREPLACE BY COMMONS IO excalibur-concurrent-1.0.jarDEAD During the period when I was actively monitoring, and later committer, in the Avalon project and Steve a primary actor. none * In the Excalibur TLP after taking over the code. excalibur-i18n-1.0.jar DEAD (No longer in source repository) excalibur-configuration-1.0.jar DEPRICATED excalibur-util-1.0.jar DEAD (No longer in source repository) excalibur-compatibility DEAD (No longer in source repository) containing the concurrent,cli,io and collections. Indecisive; excalibur-instrument-0.1.jarNEVER RELEASED (I would say that is due to Steve and my lack of interest in excalibur codebase.) cornerstone.jar UNRELEASED UNREPRODUCABLE (Unreproducable due to missing version, even no snapshot id. Would have been released in due time.) Furthermore, the entire Excalibur codebase was not buildable when I came into the Avalon project. I and Stephen spent a few weeks to get it to build, and another few weeks to get Gump to build it. We had no interest in that codebase per se. We just 'collaborated'. NOW, for the Record, I get very upset when I look at the above, and that the we (Stephen McConnell myself) are accused of; 1. Not collaborating and unable to compromise. 2. Not being concerned of other ASF users, such as Cocoon and James. 3. Not taking care of Avalon legacy. 4. Consensus by Attrition. To me it is more a matter of those who started Excalibur gave up on it, deserted the user base, and managed to blame someone else (Steve and perhaps me). As soon as the (basically) same group of primary actors, Berin Peter, regains their 'position' (i.e. Excalibur TLP) further axing of the legacy is done, without much regards for projects like Cocoon and James. You really think that we consider that fair judgement? I assume, that most of the judgement passed on Steve from respectable people like yourself, is only amplified FUD created and propagated by people who are in disagreement with Steve on how Merlin should have been evolved. I can't see any other explanation... Tragic! Can we start a new mailing list called [EMAIL PROTECTED] and somehow redirect all avalon-related emails to that? Well, some people are interested in history and justice even if it is superficial. ( Oh, I forgot, I have the right to remain silent... Go straight to jail without passing GO. ) Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Friday 17 December 2004 00:13, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Well, actually the dictionary does: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=attrition. And, yes, when someone suggests that those who don't agree with him remove themselves from the decision-making process, I would call that consensus by attrition. Why didn't you list the meanings given by your link; quote 1. A rubbing away or wearing down by friction. 2. A gradual diminution in number or strength because of constant stress. 3. A gradual, natural reduction in membership or personnel, as through retirement, resignation, or death. 4. Repentance for sin motivated by fear of punishment rather than by love of God. /quote Assuming that 4. is not what people are talking about; 3. indicates that any reduction of numbers can be called by attrition irregardless of method for that to occur, which I would see no harm in per se. 1. and 2. is probably what people are referring to, which are essentially the same. Avalon has apparently been full of stress for a very long time, way before Merlin was in Steve's head. Heaps of people left due to it, a long, long time ago. I find it awkward that the most stress-tolerant people are accused of doing something bad. Are they responsible for adding to the stress? Yes. But so are many of the people who left. And regarding the developer/committer base in Merlin; Some highly successful projects in ASF, has started with just a few people, and not exceeding 5 in its first year. Merlin's first *beta* release was in Sep 2003, then effectively 1 committer. The first official release, endorsed by the PMC, was in late May this year, and effectively two core committers and 3-4 working on auxillary stuff. Now, there are 4 developers in Metro who hack around in the core, and ~3-4 working on aux stuff. I would call this natural progression, even within ASF. Attrition happens in all projects, no matter if they are successful or not. It is only how you play the word game, the FUD and the general politics whether it is perceived as 'believable' or not. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Niclas Hedhman wrote: You really think that we consider that fair judgement? I do not blame you or Stephen or anyone individually for James's dependencies. Stephen asked the question of whether these dependencies could, or rather shouldn't it, lead me to direct blame at the ASF establishment, and so I laid out the order in which I would assign blame. Regardless of organizational structure (which I gave), it is certainly the group of coders fault before someone who has never checked out the code, and certainly the loud coders before the others. That doesn't mean it's fair, or even matters that much. I think Aaron should be sainted because a) it was volunteer and b) it was a poisoned situation that needed to end. Nobody new should consider linking to that codebase. Just let it die and the phoenix will be reborn from its ashes (pun intended). There certainly seems a lot of illwill between you+Stephen and the ASF establishment. I can somewhat understand though not empathize with wanting to have history reflect what you see as having happened. To play devil's advocate, everything new I use is built outside of the ASF, so what's the big deal about having to take your code elsewhere? -- 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Monday 20 December 2004 10:01, Serge Knystautas wrote: That doesn't mean it's fair, or even matters that much. Passing judgement on someone often doesn't matter much, except to the 'convicted'. Not guilty vs 4 weeks in jail with parole can change someone's life dramatically. Never-the-less. To play devil's advocate, everything new I use is built outside of the ASF, so what's the big deal about having to take your code elsewhere? Besides some few weeks of code transmorphing, license-based impossibilities of remaining totally backward compatible and the hassles coming from our choice of hosting ourselves (cost of dedicated hosting is dropping rapidly), I now agree that being outside ASF has many advantages, and far fewer disadvantages than I expected. Are you hinting that ASF's significance will diminish over time, as it is unable to cope with its own growth in light of the legacy? Is there a scalability issue with OSS in general? In ASF? Are there long-term problems of keeping smaller projects healthy? How about the larger ones? Do they need the benevolent dictator with his lieutenants? Just some thoughts... Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - 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
If the ASF doesn't work for you then get busy at dpml. Really, go and innovate. But, please don't stick around and try to prove a point by continuously trolling the community@ list. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Niclas Hedhman wrote: That doesn't mean it's fair, or even matters that much. Passing judgement on someone often doesn't matter much, except to the 'convicted'. Not guilty vs 4 weeks in jail with parole can change someone's life dramatically. Never-the-less. Someone could write a novel on all the ways I've failed with respect to the James project. Did you see that huge list of terrible dependencies? I was the original code donator that got convinced to adopt to this Avalon product (...that was only a few months away from releasing this great server platform.) Hell, we're still losing to sendmail! I just don't know what the big deal is about failing an open source project. I certainly would never compare it to a conviction, guilt, or jail. Are you hinting that ASF's significance will diminish over time, as it is unable to cope with its own growth in light of the legacy? Is there a scalability issue with OSS in general? In ASF? Are there long-term problems of keeping smaller projects healthy? How about the larger ones? Do they need the benevolent dictator with his lieutenants? In a word, dunno. -- 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]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
At 09:21 PM 12/19/2004, Stephen McConnell wrote: 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. The phrase can't we all get along comes to mind. Clearly that wasn't the case here, which is why, clearly, this code had moved on to other venues. Apache is about community (hence, the title of this mailing list) and to my understanding, such didn't exist, or was so fractured as to imply there was no salvaging it. Thanks to those who helped lay the issues to rest, happy ranting to those who wish to beat the dead horse, and long live good code in whatever forum is appropriate to it. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Thanks to those who helped lay the issues to rest, happy ranting to those who wish to beat the dead horse, and long live good code in whatever forum is appropriate to it. Amen, +1 Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: Who wants to commit any code or do anything in an environment as poisonous as Avalon was at the time? 4. So you don't want to spend any time in Avalon, but you really do want to make it hard for everyone else? There has to be more than one to have a disagreement. Regardless of whether there was any 'right' or 'wrong' position, it appears that there were irreducible differences. I only recall one side expressing a willingness to compromise. My memory may be imperfect, though. The only ones willing to keep committing were those who were determined to bulldoze there agenda into the repository. 5. In a positive atmosphere, it would be called; Prepared to take action, when paralysis had set into the community. ISTR some issues about ignored vetos and vetos without sufficient justification. The agenda was to promote Merlin into a platform for component oriented architecture. When that was considered being against approx half the PMC and some additional developers, we started the process of taking Merlin to TLP, but the Excalibur group just needed to be better, and by throwing in a second proposal, at least one member of the Board intervened privately, and asked us to drop the Merlin TLP and forge ahead with the new vision. Now, I call that a mandate. Please clarify what you mean by 'mandate' here. That the board was mandating that you drop the Merlin TLP idea? Yet, Excalibur TLP without me and Steve was manna from heaven for this group, but it was definately a matter of balkanization along people and not technology. Something Mr Coar would never agree to. One thing I don't agree to is people putting words in my mouth. Please cease doing so. Then why in the world are you bringing your grief back here? 8. grief. My dear little boy, if you call this grief you don't know much about life. Call me when someone really near to you pass away, and then we can talk about grief. I believe this is a cultural miscommunication. I think Aaron meant grief as in 'giving grief': In retrospect, do I regret that we now are active outside ASF? No, not at all. Then why in the world are you bringing your grief back here? 'If you have no regrets about having moved outside the ASF, why do you care what happens there and why are you contributing to this thread?' Aaron can correct me if I'm wrong. In any event, on the face of it I consider your 'my dear little boy' remark to be condescending, offensive, and uncalled-for. But that too might be a lingual/cultural misunderstanding. Maybe I am just satanistic sadist who like to kick a dead horse. Maybe I happen to think that a great injustice has been made, and don't like when people make statements portrayed as facts, when they at the most can be called perceptions. Heh. Sounds like the pot and kettle calling each other black. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcc+mZrNPMCpn3XdAQHjEgQAlXpZfmfBipX7UI3UAW4vvJSx0VG1GYNJ hEtT+l+veoLumaPOJWuLBEfNUp5VoF/q/l8gOYPieXuz4q54G8M4CTw4WelP/fxv ljSQZOFgHz1Jg2+5/PMaJVMMHR0NIM6Pni4bLgU1Ta2IRyR6t9De4d4YZHm3zxT/ 5ludNB0pn5M= =oxoX -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. Complain about the violation of custom, if you like, but stop stating/insinuating that ASF policies/procedures were violated. It didn't happen, at least not in the situation under discussion. Maybe this is about sending a message to some of the members of the board that coercion has consequence. Actually, I'm seeing quite a number of attempts here to 'send messages' to several different destinations. So far most of them seem to be getting marked 'return to sender.' Or perhaps they aren't really there, and I need to have my prescription changed so I don't see 'em any more. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcdBKprNPMCpn3XdAQG8WwP9FQ47BhsQpvn4AMKXAgcHgEDEGVoCtZ/X RmH6AnupOB1Y96uFgzIqlWoSP+MzkuXvuSD8BtB+HFvDfV4BGovpAAwtUE8SGEsp XNZdYakAFnTg/wWx85Yr5dXZKBLV1XKEtK5DEAmueV8JuHL729RzB6xbVVpsRJtr RELBBzoewgw= =tSDL -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: Irrespective of the validity of this opinion - members of the board actively encouraged Aaron to ignore any PMC opinion and take an executive decision. Provide citations supporting this, please. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcc++5rNPMCpn3XdAQHV4AP+JmzuBCMztjvIGTex5CURBINxAQbJPWXg JuCiEYMyzYXVgdwxFQN9Hw3Nn7pK4B/M2060sPNYQEF3nz3actxH3NsLZ7Yth2Xw 4NVQAz5cPDJ/PvtFlnE7h5ossgu6HJE82J27BLOKiMSWMNe7597QqTJkeqARxSDB HLG6ztoDiMw= =a1vc -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Tuesday 21 December 2004 05:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: Niclas Hedhman wrote: Who wants to commit any code or do anything in an environment as poisonous as Avalon was at the time? 4. So you don't want to spend any time in Avalon, but you really do want to make it hard for everyone else? There has to be more than one to have a disagreement. Regardless of whether there was any 'right' or 'wrong' position, it appears that there were irreducible differences. I only recall one side expressing a willingness to compromise. My memory may be imperfect, though. I am sure that you have some very specific episode in mind, and by leaving that out, it is hard to respond to it. I give you an example of what I call 'compromise' and 'collaboration' ; * The Merlin camp was accused of bulldozing the people who supported the Excalibur/Fortress platforms. * The Excalibur codebase was in a terrible shape and didn't build. * Fortress was in slightly better shape, but couldn't build in a single invocation, due to internal cyclic dependencies. * Fortress and Excalibur has cyclic dependencies between them. * There was a cyclic dependency that went via a project in the Incubator (AltRMI). * I spent several weeks (actual man-weeks) unnesting all of that, and making it ready for a final release. * I then spend additional unknown amount of time, to get the same codebases (+Phoenix) to build in Gump. (note, Steve helped out a lot in the above excersize, but was primarily focusing on getting Merlin ready for a release.) Now, if I have no sense of collaboration, taking care of the Legacy and compromise (in this case balancing my time between Excalibur vs Merlin), then I have no clue what you guys expect from people. If inability of compromise is the same as refusing to implement what others think should be done, then just about every single project in ASF is guilty as charged. 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. The only ones willing to keep committing were those who were determined to bulldoze there agenda into the repository. 5. In a positive atmosphere, it would be called; Prepared to take action, when paralysis had set into the community. ISTR some issues about ignored vetos and vetos without sufficient justification. (Don't know what ISTR stands for) Ok, I would like to know of these vetoes. Not more FUD. The only veto I know of that has been in dispute, is Leo Simons veto against the new site, which in defense I say; 1. It came in late, long after the change was executed. 2. His issue was regarding the change of wording in the specification of the AF4.2, which he claimed was an incompatible change for component authors. 3. In the midst of that clarification, heaps of people stepped in with other issues, murking what is on the table of a veto and what is not; - Berin Loritsch had a list of issues, IIRC, mostly concerning missing redirect links, and I recall the final conversation with him that his concerns were all addressable. - Stefano Mazzocchi jump in, making a big thing about the Avalon Legacy and the people who was before (without noticing that he himself, together with a few others had been properly ADDED to the list of developers, which previously was missing before I dug into it.), which led to a Ford Thunderbird analogy (which *I* found amuzing). 4. Most people having negative reaction, fuelling the flames were not part of the daily Avalon community. Steve made the mistake of trying to defend our choices, which got out of hand and he resigned in response to make sure everything cool down. But that was all about Leo Simons veto... I am sure you must be talking about something else... The agenda was to promote Merlin into a platform for component oriented architecture. When that was considered being against approx half the PMC and some additional developers, we started the process of taking Merlin to TLP, but the Excalibur group just needed to be better, and by throwing in a second proposal, at least one member of the Board intervened privately, and asked us to drop the Merlin TLP and forge ahead with the new vision. Now, I call that a mandate. Please clarify what you mean by 'mandate' here. That the board was mandating that you drop the Merlin TLP idea? Mandate that the Board, or parts thereof, thought it was better to spin the Legacy into a new project and let Avalon grow into a Merlin-based community and the visions we had. Yet, Excalibur TLP without me and Steve was manna from heaven for this group, but it was definately a matter of balkanization along people and not technology. Something Mr Coar would never agree to. One thing I don't agree to is people putting words in my mouth. Please cease doing so. So you want the quote? You have been hammering me
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
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. And that would have been wrong. SVN is our successor to CVS, and we are to PRESERVE *ALL* history of our code, which is an asset. 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. I'm not on the Board, and I am one of the most vocal at insisting on absolute preservation of development history. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Niclas Hedhman wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=attrition. Why didn't you list the meanings given by your link Because people can read. 1. and 2. is probably what people are referring to Yes. Some highly successful projects in ASF, has started with just a few people, and not exceeding 5 in its first year. Now, there are 4 developers in Metro who hack around in the core, and ~3-4 working on aux stuff. Point? You seem to keep forgetting that I supported Merlin havine a home at the ASF. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
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. 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. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: Maybe this about making Apache a better place by identifying hypocrisy here out in the open instead of behind the protection of private lists. yawn The facts don't bear witness to the claim. 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. None of which happened. --- Noel - 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
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. --- Noel - 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
Stephen McConnell wrote: * What do you think is the role of a PMC in our decision making process? The PMC makes all binding decisions regarding a project. If the PMC fails in that regard to the satisfaction of the Foundation's stakeholders, the Board can, and will be expected to, take action. * Within our decision processes, what do you think is more important - the community or the individual? Short answer: the community. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. * Within our decision processes, what do you think is more important - the community or the individual? The community. Individuals participate, but the distinction between an ASF project and a, say, sourceforge project, is that the ASF project is more than one individual. One hopes they survive the departure of any given individual, or the influnces of one specific individual Sadly, that doesn't always happen. Bill - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: * Within our decision processes, what do you think is more important - the community or the individual? The community. Individuals participate, but the distinction between an ASF project and a, say, sourceforge project, is that the ASF project is more than one individual. One hopes they survive the departure of any given individual, or the influnces of one specific individual Sadly, that doesn't always happen. Also, the ASF has established PMCs and PMC Chairs so that when a community breaks down, there is someone to step in and take responsibility. This can happen because a community does not properly handle legal issues or because of severe disharmony which distrupts the community. What Stephen is trying to get at is that he believes that the community was completely behind the Single Avalon Platform initiative and that I disagreed and as PMC Chair recommended the shutdown of Avalon, thus allowing one individual to trump the will of the community. However, this isn't a very accurate view of what happened. The community was not 100% behind the Single Avalon Platform, more specifically, we weren't behind the manner in which the Merlin programmers wished to implement this initiative. Stephen didn't really care that others didn't agree and moved ahead anyway. Eventually, enough people got sick and tired of this behavior that rather than fight, they left, i.e.- consensus by attrition. What this means is that a few months after the initial vote, there were really only one or two of us left who didn't agree with Stephen's vision. So now Stephen can say, well, hey, the whole community agrees with me, what's your problem? Of course, all that really happened was that the Merlin team highjacked Avalon. In their defense, all the Merlin developers ever wanted was a place to call home. They wanted their own project space to develop in peace. I don't think anyone, intially, had nefarious plans. But the project started in Avalon and that's where it grew until it got so big it started to eclipse the original Avalon project. What should have happened was to allow the Merlin project to grow somewhere outside of Avalon. But breaking up is hard to do, so no one really wanted to kick Merlin out and we all thought we could work things out within Avalon. However, we should have moved it to the Incubator instead of incubating it within Avalon. By the time we realized Merlin should be separated from Avalon, the Merlin developers wanted their own TLP and felt incubation would be some sort of punishment or demotion. Merlin never became a TLP for a couple of reasons. One, not everyone understood the need and the technical differences between Merlin and Avalon/Excalibur. Particularly, not everyone was convinced we needed both Merlin _and_ Avalon or Merlin _and_ Excalibur. Additionally we have the fact that even at this point, Merlin was mostly a one or two man show. And one of those developers, Stephen, had a history (right or wrong) of causing contention. The Merlin team had shown they could develop great software, but not that they could develop a community which espoused the principles of the ASF. Moreover, they weren't really interested in compromising. It was a TLP or nothing at all. Add these all up and we can see why the Board was leary of a Merlin TLP. Eventually, everyone lost patience and the situation broke down. Merlin forked to become Metro outside of the ASF and I recommended the shutdown of Avalon. Stephen feels I didn't follow proper procedures and tries to paint me as disloyal to the Avalon community and a puppet of Board members bent on destroying him. That' fine. I can understand that Stephen doesn't love me right now. I'm not losing sleep over it. The thing is, and the reason for sharing this with the community, is that PMC's and communities need to watch out for this sort of thing in your own community. Don't wait for the situation to get critical. PMCs and PMC Chairs can intervene and should rather than watch a community tear itself apart. So, to answer Stephen's question, communities are most important in the decision process, but individuals need to step up and step in when a community breaks down. jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
J Aaron Farr wrote: ... The thing is, and the reason for sharing this with the community, is that PMC's and communities need to watch out for this sort of thing in your own community. Don't wait for the situation to get critical. PMCs and PMC Chairs can intervene and should rather than watch a community tear itself apart. I was an Avalon PMC Chair that had to deal with these issues, and what happened back then - that is two years ago - is remarkably similar to what has happened till Avalon's closure. If I were in the same position now, I would have been more resolute in pushing the community split. Time and non-intervention have only perpetuated problems, if not made them worse. As the saying goes, You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. So, to answer Stephen's question, communities are most important in the decision process, but individuals need to step up and step in when a community breaks down. +1 I can't agree more. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Now the partys over Im so tired [ ... as probably everyone else here ...] Then I see you coming Out of nowhere [ ... Is this you, Stephen? ... ] Much communication in a motion Without conversation or a notion [... Yep ...] Avalon When the samba takes you Out of nowhere And the backgrounds fading Out of focus Yes the picture changing Every moment [... Yep ...] And your destination You dont know it [... That guy must be a clairvoyant...] Avalon When you bossa nova Theres no holding Would you have me dancing Out of nowhere Avalon Comments in [] by me, with apologies to Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music. Now, can we please lay this thread to rest? What good is it for? Just to prove I was right? Regards Henning (This was meant to be a funny/ironic comment. Come on, these lyrics are more than twenty years old... ) -- 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]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Dec 17, 2004, at 10:35 AM, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: Comments in [] by me, with apologies to Bryan Ferry and Roxy Music. You just ruined this for me - I really liked that song, and I really hate this whole Avalon thing. Now, can we please lay this thread to rest? What good is it for? Just to prove I was right? +1 Regards Henning (This was meant to be a funny/ironic comment. Come on, these lyrics are more than twenty years old... ) -- 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] -- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Now, can we please lay this thread to rest? What good is it for? Just to prove I was right? +1 Sorry for the noise. I do hope, though, that the larger ASF community does learn some lessons from what happened in Avalon and that we can avoid such unfortunate circumstances in the future. jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Niclas Hedhman wrote: Smoke and Mirrors Not at all. Stephen was incorrect, and I was providing the correction. I passed no judgement about whether any of the decisions were the right ones, only stated that they were valid. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcCrJ5rNPMCpn3XdAQHnqAP8CXAlBBAXE32zN6lPGzyPwEUYGTEoAG4z 3x/tpGT61yuW0KWJAHB6Z6b1M7imAs+NuQlqvGJN7ersWGC9KeZQIKH7KQbPLDy4 VqfDkjaEO5qiT4x6quTGbonu5BavAAcVZ8ybVDa2D7jWI25eMhQT+Ov8LGhO3CVR 6CKvFNb2qOo= =F0oA -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Thursday 16 December 2004 04:00, Serge Knystautas wrote: 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. That does not make James/Cocoon and the other ASF projects the *only* users. Now, thanks to the private mails issue that I have been hammered for in the past, I can't quote the ASF Director on public lists, but when I previously pointed out what level of support the Merlin route had among the users, I was bluntly told; that doesn't matter, and given BCEL as an example of plenty of users but failure as a project. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Wednesday 01 December 2004 11:26, Noel J. Bergman wrote: more important than the community's vision The [VOTE] Single Avalon Platform[1] was started by Aaron. The vote passed, although you decided not to participate. True, the vote is not about Merlin==Avalon, but about a to-be-defined specification, although it is hinted both in the [VOTE] as well as in the Vote results[2], that Merlin is the only platform that had enough momentum to fulfill such specification. proceeded to engineer consensus by attrition, I am sick and tired of hearing this about Steve (just because something is said enough many times, doesn't make it true), so let's bring out some attrition... * Leo Sutic called the Merlin camp quoteSteve and his Nazi hordes/quote. * I pointed out that was inappropriate language in a very formal tone, but not really offended. * Greg Stein[3] steps into the discussion and goes; What's your problem? So, my conclusion was; to Greg it is fine to call someone a Nazist, but it is not fine to object to it. I found that disgusting and left the Avalon PMC in protest. In the end, there was a lot of mouth and very little action from one camp, and very much backing your mouth with action in the other. Many people lay their argument to rest and steps aside to let those who are able to complete their vision. Steve proposes/suggest to the remaining individuals to do the same, THAT is what you now call attrition. The proposal of splitting into both Excalibur and Merlin TLPs are a result of all these flamewars. To be frank, at that time, Merlin was the technically different project. It had expanded the scope of Avalon by a magnitude, yet members of the Board encourages us to withdraw the proposal and forge ahead within Avalon. The people who didn't like Merlin, started Excalibur, i.e. 'old Avalon without Framework'. Furthermore, during the Merlin TLP proposal, Mr Coar tells me that he will not support the formation of a project based on balkanization of people and only for differentiation on technology. YET, he did exactly that with the Excalibur TLP, AND not along technical differences that Merlin in effect was all about. When pressed, Mr Coar admits that he didn't know any of the technology within Avalon, and trusts other members of the Board to provide the judgment. Noel, you know all of this, yet you decide to ignore facts and only re-inforce the myth of consensus by attrition of Stephen McConnell. Your motives for that is unknown, and I won't speculate, but I will not let you get away with it that easy. Now is now, and everyone who set out to get Steve kicked out of ASF have succeeded. Mission accomplished, without officially having to kick him out. In retrospect, do I regret that we now are active outside ASF? No, not at all. I think it is a bigger loss to ASF than it is to us. Transitional hurdles for some Merlin users, yes, but we are getting over that and will forge ahead with a lot of action and no mouth. Since mouthing is the fashion in ASF, I come here to do it... :o) Cheers Niclas [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-devm=107906869526922w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-devm=107940014832041w=2 [3] Since Greg was not an Avalon user nor developer, I assumed that he intervened in the capacity as ASF Chairman, but he later pointed out that he was acting as an interested individual, my peer developer, hanging out on the Avalon PMC list, and not acting in any official capacity. -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Hello everyone. -Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... The [VOTE] Single Avalon Platform[1] was started by Aaron. The vote passed, although you decided not to participate. Votes are not infallible. Communities can change directions especially when they realize a mistake had been made. This is an important lesson for all ASF communities. In the case of the Single Avalon Platform it was a goal we all shared. However, we disagreed on the means. Particularly, (speaking of the ASF not caring about Avalon users), some of us felt that we did not need to jetison our existing code and users of ECM/Fortress and the Framework to get there. Others felt the only way to move forward was to bury the past code and users. In the end it came down to a mandate that the Avalon PMC and community had a responsibility to support the existing Framework (4.x) and if we could not do so, we needed to find others who would. Despite several attempts, it was apparent that Avalon, in its current condition, could not satisfy that mandate, so the code was moved to a community which would. proceeded to engineer consensus by attrition, I am sick and tired of hearing this about Steve (just because something is said enough many times, doesn't make it true), so let's bring out some attrition... The consensus by attrition charge is NOT a myth. The example which you bring up is not the basis for my coining the phrase Consensus by Attrition to describe Stephen's tatics. That philosophy was developed over years, not one incident. It was bluntly discussed in many emails, public and private. In fact, Niclas, why don't you open up all the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives? I seem to remember quite a few conversations by the Metro TLP team about wanting to, what was it?, clean up the kitchen or take out the trash in reference to cleaning up the dead committers in Avalon. There was an active decision by members of the Avalon (Merlin) community to _purge_ those who disagreed with the Single Avalon Platform, moreover, those who disagreed with a specific implementation plan. I can assure you that despite what has been suggested, there was no such conspiracy by the Board, the ASF Members, or any other group of Avalon committers to do the same. I'm sorry you've got an ax to grind with Greg. His comment was _not_ about defending Leo Sutic. You took it personally when it was never intended to be taken personal. Everyone has apologized but you have refused to move beyond it. In the end, there was a lot of mouth and very little action from one camp, and very much backing your mouth with action in the other. Who wants to commit any code or do anything in an environment as poisonous as Avalon was at the time? The only ones willing to keep committing were those who were determined to bulldoze there agenda into the repository. The proposal of splitting into both Excalibur and Merlin TLPs are a result of all these flamewars. To be frank, at that time, Merlin was the technically different project. It had expanded the scope of Avalon by a magnitude, yet members of the Board encourages us to withdraw the proposal and forge ahead within Avalon. The people who didn't like Merlin, started Excalibur, i.e. 'old Avalon without Framework'. I argued for the separate TLPs for a long time. It would have been a great solution. There was definitely some misunderstanding about why we (Avalon) felt we needed the new TLPs. Not everyone understood the development goals of the two communities (Excalibur and Merlin) and how they were different. Maybe we didn't explain it well enough. We certainly tried. But it wasn't lack of differentiation on technology that scuttled our plans. It wasn't a lack of technical maturity, it was a lack of community maturity. Community health is the chief concern of the Board when approving TLPs, whereas many Merlin TLP proponents didn't even recognize that this was a valid concern. There wasn't a willingness to work together. Instead, there was an underlying assumption that Merlin _deserved_ to be a TLP without question. When questions arose, instead of working together, the Merlin team went on the defensive and then the attack. This, above and beyond anything else, ruined Merlin's chances. In retrospect, do I regret that we now are active outside ASF? No, not at all. Then why in the world are you bringing your grief back here? jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Thursday 16 December 2004 22:51, J Aaron Farr wrote: In fact, Niclas, why don't you open up all the [EMAIL PROTECTED] archives? I seem to remember quite a few conversations by the Metro TLP team about wanting to, what was it?, clean up the kitchen or take out the trash in reference to cleaning up the dead committers in Avalon. 1. It was not a mailing list per se. There are no archives, only what you have on your hard disk. 2. Isn't it great that you can quote without a source, taking things out of context without worrying about public scrutiny. You have really outdone yourself in this one, though... I'm sorry you've got an ax to grind with Greg. His comment was _not_ about defending Leo Sutic. 3. For the record, the incident with Greg is IMO something that happened, which I still think was utterly unappropriate (Why don't *you* open the mail archives around it?), but not to be held against him for all times. Furthermore, I didn't took it personally. I don't know if the law has been changed recently in France and Germany, but it has been illegal to even publish the words, and definately libel. Now, please stand with a straight face and say that was Ok, for for instance our german middle-aged member. Who wants to commit any code or do anything in an environment as poisonous as Avalon was at the time? 4. So you don't want to spend any time in Avalon, but you really do want to make it hard for everyone else? There has to be more than one to have a disagreement. The only ones willing to keep committing were those who were determined to bulldoze there agenda into the repository. 5. In a positive atmosphere, it would be called; Prepared to take action, when paralysis had set into the community. The agenda was to promote Merlin into a platform for component oriented architecture. When that was considered being against approx half the PMC and some additional developers, we started the process of taking Merlin to TLP, but the Excalibur group just needed to be better, and by throwing in a second proposal, at least one member of the Board intervened privately, and asked us to drop the Merlin TLP and forge ahead with the new vision. Now, I call that a mandate. Yet, Excalibur TLP without me and Steve was manna from heaven for this group, but it was definately a matter of balkanization along people and not technology. Something Mr Coar would never agree to. Not everyone understood the development goals of the two communities (Excalibur and Merlin) and how they were different. 6. I didn't understand it then, and I don't understand it now. Community health is the chief concern of the Board when approving TLPs, whereas many Merlin TLP proponents didn't even recognize that this was a valid concern. There wasn't a willingness to work together. 7. Not willing to work together? Leo Sutic started on some very neutral aspect orientation stuff, which both I and Steve supported, but when the main driver runs out of air, what do expect? The 'accusers' of that Steve and I were unwilling to co-operate, only bring up that we refuse to make implementations to their whimps. Except for the /LS initiative, I can't recall any other, where we tried to stop any progress, that someone wanted to persue. Only recall the opposite. We do something, everyone else want to block it. Give me some examples where we were not willing to work together. FUD is hard to argue against. Then why in the world are you bringing your grief back here? 8. grief. My dear little boy, if you call this grief you don't know much about life. Call me when someone really near to you pass away, and then we can talk about grief. Maybe I am just satanistic sadist who like to kick a dead horse. Maybe I happen to think that a great injustice has been made, and don't like when people make statements portrayed as facts, when they at the most can be called perceptions. Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Niclas, J Aarron said it so well, I really have little to add, but I'll respond to a couple of your comments directed to me. Niclas Hedhman wrote: Noel J. Bergman wrote: proceeded to engineer consensus by attrition, I am sick and tired of hearing this about Steve Many people lay their argument to rest and steps aside to let those who are able to complete their vision. Steve proposes/suggest to the remaining individuals to do the same, THAT is what you now call attrition. Well, actually the dictionary does: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=attrition. And, yes, when someone suggests that those who don't agree with him remove themselves from the decision-making process, I would call that consensus by attrition. Noel, you know all of this, yet you decide to ignore facts and only re-inforce the myth of consensus by attrition of Stephen McConnell. The PMC e-mail archives support it -- including Stephen's direct requests to several PMC members for them to resign. Your motives for that is unknown Motives? I was one of the ones willing to support Merlin at the ASF, and I've told Stephen that we'll be willing to test JAMES on Merlin. However, I have also said to him that I'm not interested in forking JAMES to do so. Merlin must maintain compatibility with existing Avalon components. If we are going to rewrite JAMES to deal with container issues, we'll move away from container dependence entirely. Now is now, and everyone who set out to get Steve kicked out of ASF have succeeded. How is Stephen kicked out? He's welcome to participate as far as I'm concerned. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Stephen McConnell wrote: The Board had nothing to do with these directions or choices. Our only (recent) involvment was that the VP in charge of Avalon asked us to terminate the project, so we did. A board decision taken *without* the endorsement of the Avalon PMC, *without* a vote of the community and clearly in contradiction with the expressed interests of the committers at that time. Let's not try and rewrite history just yet. Let's understand the factual basis of things first. A project chair doesn't *have* to have endorsement from anyone else. It is ultimately responsible for the project, and has the necessary authority to do whatever is appropriate. The fact that most, if not all, projects are led by consensus of the PMC, with the chairs functioning essentially as peers, is a tribute to both the viability of the structure and the abilities and understanding of the chairs themselves. So the PMC chair was perfectly within its authority to request that the board terminate the project. And from what I read on the Avalon lists, my clear impression is that the action had majority support within the project if not a consensus. - -- #kenP-)} 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 iQCVAwUBQcCBt5rNPMCpn3XdAQEWNAP/aqjxTf6Ucs8Dw4JewgDLOJBYE3Ah2ZKA BeUjMOQZw4ZQm8FBcPgy8lVh9+3HKPFPMuIffzeQYKWNGoWEC1TZTZFLQLmcUTc5 Pz4EbfMZ7fd5NiyP9Kp1zmEhHM5L0tr7ENIu5CMPiMAgja2Be46rbl9FyT8pH7DP pyICHT/arvY= =0TlP -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Thursday 16 December 2004 02:26, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: So the PMC chair was perfectly within its authority to request that the board terminate the project. And from what I read on the Avalon lists, my clear impression is that the action had majority support within the project if not a consensus. 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. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.dpml.net / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. Avalon tried to do something huge and revolutionary at the time, had plenty of good intentions, mix of results, mix of personalities, changing visions, changing goals. It's a long, complicated story. But nobody in this matter (inside or outside Avalon) had bad intentions, and don't for a minute act like you did while others didn't. Give me a break. (IMHO, Aaron did a fantastic job dealing with a challenging situation.) -- 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]
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: [ANN] Avalon Closed
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 02:26:43AM +0100, Stephen McConnell wrote: ... The Avalon community established a PMC to represent the community interests concerning the direction and administration of the Avalon project. Um. No. The Apache Software Foundation established the PMC. Its purpose was to provide the necessary (legal) oversight of the development of the Avalon project. That oversight is/was necessary to establish the appropriate legal protection for the committers on the project and the ASF itself. It is the ASF that releases the Avalon code, not the committers. To do that properly, certain things need to be done for the benefit of all involved. You may disagree with some of those processes, their purpose, and how it was done, but that is simply too bad. They need to exist so that our users can properly trust the code we provide. The community interests were clear - a single platform, one specification, a cohesive solution. No, that was never clear. That was *your* desire, Stephen, and you did everything you could to steer things in that direction. You alienated people, you berated people, and you generally made things unpleasant for anybody that did not have your same vision. Avalon went through many phases, and the single platform you mention was simply the last thing standing after your various escapades. That decision was not respected by the outgoing chair nor the board of directors of the ASF. The Board had nothing to do with these directions or choices. Our only (recent) involvment was that the VP in charge of Avalon asked us to terminate the project, so we did. Also recently, we directed the Avalon project to step up and deal with the problems that it has had, and to take proper care of its legacy users. But we did not specify any particular solutions. The PMC came up with the solutions. 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. I have no idea what you're talking about here. The Board of Directors of the Apache Software Foundation does not have or need any confrontation. As a group, we work together very, very well. In the past three years or so that I've been on the Board, I can only recall *two* votes that were not unanimous. We reach consensus very easily, and it isn't because we beat some unnamed board member into submission. The weakness of our Chair was more a question of his personal loyalty to the community. I disagree. I very much respect what J Aaron Farr has done for Avalon. You made it a rather difficult task, but he stepped up and dealt with it. He didn't have to, but he did. And he did it because the community needed somebody to deal with the issues. Further, I think that he handled it very, very well. Some of the posts that he has written shows great insight into why great communities are needed here at Apache, and what makes a great community. He's shown that he can also help to shape those communities, despite adversity that was caused by certain folks. At times, he didn't take as much action as I might have, but I fully believe that he had good reasons, and I support the choices he made. Aaron has my respect, and I hope he continues to be involved in other Apache projects. 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. You may not like the process, but the legal backing provided by the ASF for the code that we release needs it. And in the end, our users need that. You are certainly free to create a different model, but it does mean the resulting code will not have the same kinds of assurances the ASF provides, nor will you have an entity that can assume legal liability for your results. It's your choice to make, and for your users to decide whether that is important. Cheers, -g -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ASF Chairman ... http://www.apache.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Stephen McConnell wrote: 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. The Board had nothing to do with the closure. The outgoing chair tried for a long time to resolve it by other changes. The fact is that you decided that your vision was more important than the community's vision, and proceeded to engineer consensus by attrition, both within the community and within the PMC, including asking both myself and another PMC member to resign. Despite that, I continued to work to keep Merlin at the ASF, as did at least one Director who had offered to personally mentor the project. You were not willing to accept any proposals, and prefered to remove Merlin elsewhere. Aaron is right to thank all of those who put blood, sweat and tears into Avalon. 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. In other words, you make the rules and run the show. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [ANN] Avalon Closed
Messages like this are IMHO the main reason, why Avalon failed. Stephen, you should understand, that community always means compromise. You didn't seem to be able to accept that. In the end, these tensions lead to the end of Avalon. Story is over, no need to kick a dead horse. One of the good things about ASF code _is_, that you can take it somewhere else and go on with it. Good luck with Metro/Merlin. But now, please let the dead rest. Regards Henning On Wed, 2004-12-01 at 02:26, Stephen McConnell wrote: -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] -- 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]
