Sam Ruby wrote:
Why does the Phoenix [1] page *still* say that it is the reference implementation? Is everybody waiting for Peter Donald to do it?
no, it was already done.
If you have time for an amusing diversion, take a look at the Rules for Open-Source Programming [2]. Be sure to read the Meta-Rules first as you will inevitably find that the rules when taken as a whole are self-contradictory and some are outright false. But as with most humor, each nugget is based on a kernel of truth.Look, I don't think that removing Peter's name from the entire codebase will change anything in the way it is developped.
Mostly, I would like to draw your attention to Sunir's corollaries [2]. In particular, the statement that "as long as the project *looks* like one person's work, it *is* one person's work."
Until the recent global change eradicating personal @author tags, approximately 75% of the source files in the framework had Peter's name on them. This exceeded the number of files which contained an author's tag with any other name. Combined. (Out of 62 files, 46 contained Peter's name, 45 contained any other name, 17 contained only Peter's name, and only 16 did not contain Peter's name).more than these statistical details, I would like to know if somebody ever implemented something in Phoneix that Peter didn't like or voted -1 on.
I suspect that if you narrow the focus to recent history, the results would be even more dramatic. It is clear that Peter has the drive, ability, interest, and dedication to out-code the rest of the project combined. He also challenges each contributor to maintain the highest standards of quality and attention to customer requirements.Yeah, it would be an *awesome* thing. I think that *nobody* here lacks respect for Peter's technical skills and commitment. The problem is his attitude against confrontation.
In many contexts, these would be good things.
And, in moderation, these are good things here. But things are out of balance in Avalon. Lately, this project *looks* like one person's work, and Sunir's observations apply.
No, Sam, Phoenix *IS* one person's work. As Merlin is.
In particular, I notice that several members of the community seem to derive a tad too much pleasure in the rare events where Peter is proven wrong.I remember with great pleasure when I managed to change Peter's mind on blocks a while back, but not because I proved him wrong, but because I felt he had the skills I value for community building: technical value mixed with moderation and humbleness and respect for other people's ideas. I left this project with great respect for him and his community building skills.
History proved me dead wrong: Peter has not been able to create one single healthy and diverse community around his code. This is an indisputable fact and would not be bad by itself (a committer isn't required to be a consensus builder) but it *is* bad for somebody that pretends to be a leader.
Yes, I'm saying this in the open because I would like other people to do the same with me.
I consider this a form of respect: I respect you so much that I want to tell you loud and clear what I think about you and I want to suggest you ways to improve.
It might hurt, but in the long run, it's the only way we can learn something.
The alternative is to require consensus. Strive always to do as Noel so eloquently described [4] with the words "we did it as a community, we support it as a community, and if necessary we'll fix it as a community.". Achieving this will require changes in behavior from pretty much everybody here. It will also be hard work. And require much patience. And endurance.
Yes. -- Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
