not understanding why exactly we're talking about this, I had a good laugh......
On Sun, 2002-11-24 at 18:44, 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? the usual answer would be along the lines of (though in different wording) "apparently, no-one was bothered enough to fix it in the time frame that you would like; you are welcome to provide patches....if you persevere in providing valuable input, commentary, documentation, patches.......rather than just asking others to do work....we'll thank you very much, be very happy, and we'll happily make you part of the "everyone" that can actually make the fix!" or something like that. Such a statement doesn't apply here at all (you're not here to contribute code or anything like that; you're using this as an example of pointing out community issues), but I am terribly inclined to make it anyway. Conditioning :D > 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." Also found this on the same page: 1. Always give attribution. If you don't, you're not doing free software, no matter what the license lets you get away with. there's your contradiction :D > 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. > > In many contexts, these would be good things. And, in moderation, these > are good things here. But things are out of balance in Avalon. in some areas (example: XCommander (in an obscure corner of some avalon cvs somewhere is definitely a one-man-show). Where it matters most (speaking technically), not. > 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. I like. Next action item :D > Meanwhile, there is some low hanging fruit. For starters, it is > detrimental to the community for the words "The reference > implementation" to appear prominently on the Phoenix page [1]. Peter > has already indicated that this wording was a historical accident. dead wrong, btw. I think I put that in, and I think I put it in because I believed it would be a good idea for avalon to have one authoritative container codebase and one only (with everything else in non-apache cvs). I still believe we need a reference implementation, but I understand now (well, quite some time ago) phoenix is not and should not be that :D cheers, - Leo -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
