RE: The Rules of Open-Source Programming

[Leo Sutic]

Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> From my perspective, you are missing what is arguably the single largest
> point. Leo, aren't you part of the Avalon Community? Why are you deferring
> to Peter for that answer? Phoenix is not his project; it is yours.
> Collectively.
>
> What do YOU want for Phoenix's future? Express your view(s). Work within
> the community to build a consensus that you can accept. THAT is leadership,
> and THAT the future of Phoenix.

My views on what Phoenix's future should be are still being formed. Phoenix has been part of Avalon but yet not part of it, in a way. Before I go so far as to try concensus-building, I want to know how those most intimately involved with Phoenix feel about the project, its place in Avalon and its future. It may not be your type of leadership, but in this case it is mine.

So far, I have just one more point (besides the "phoenix not reference container" already made), and I'd hope to add more to it before writing up a proposal:

+ Merge phoenix-dev with Avalon-dev. C'mon people - let the lost brother come back home.


Finally,
1. Phoenix may be owned by the "community", but decisions are made by individuals. I don't believe that there is such a thing as "the community decided". Individuals decided. Peter's CVS logs indicate hat he has made a load of decisions regarding Phoenix, and his involvement with Phoenix indicates that he will do many more. I therefore believe I am in my full right to ask him what those future decisions may be.

(Don't confuse community ownership with some mythical community God that directs our actions.)

2. That said, your points are taken, and I shall increase my proposal/whining ratio.

3. If you wish to discuss any point further - I hope I understood your argument correctly - I'll listen. I may not get back to you in another 10-12 hours or so. It's sleeptime now.

/LS



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>