If that's how you read it, fine. I rest my case. I'd be removing the IO projects from the repository Windsor, and keeping the transaction one as it stands. I'd prefer that you find a more suitable shipping vehicle for it.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:37 AM, Henrik <[email protected]> wrote: > You can generalize it all your want, but my points still stand. You > haven't replied to a single of them. > > On Oct 25, 4:33 pm, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> As Mauricio justed posted on twitter "OSS management 101 : never ever >> have private >> discussionshttp://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html#avoid-private-discussions"; >> >> The list is the way for all parties involved in the project to know >> what's happening. If you miss the boat, too bad. I wont be knocking on >> your door asking for consent or permission before me - on anybody else >> - do something. >> >> Contributors dont need committer access. That's why there are >> fork/pull requests. But we do have a process to propose/vote new >> committers, and that is valid for all projects under the castle >> umbrella. >> >> If I've done something to trigger that lack of trust I apologize. >> However I'm very critical of myself and yet couldnt find an event that >> builds the case for you to accuse me of that. The repos restructuring >> emails went on for months, and were discussed to exhaustion. There was >> no "hierarchical" decision. There has been lots of ongoing discussion, >> agreements and disagreements. If you're not comfortable with that, >> this is not the environment for you. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Henrik <[email protected]> wrote: >> > We all spend our free time on this, so yeah, I feel your pain. >> >> >> [Tx:] and forked it on your own >> >> > Yes, DVC. >> >> >> You gave access to non-committers >> >> > Not yet, I haven't, no. I'm still trying to discuss it publicly on >> > this mailing list, looking for a yes. >> >> > Although, you must understand that I'm interested in increased >> > cooperation in .Net/other language OSS ecosystems and this happens by >> > including people. Not by excluding them. And see now, we might >> > actually have excellent programmers helping us create a great project! >> > It's a win-win situation, hammett. >> >> >> You also created another project under the castle umbrella under the >> >> castle umbrella >> >> without our consent and control it under your own repos >> >> > Yes, Castle.Facilities.NHibernate. But I'm not asking to have that >> > included on the main site. There's a thread on that project. >> >> > If you search the history of this mailing list you will find that it's >> > not the case for another project. >> >> >> You're a valuable contributor and I appreciate your domain expertise >> >> on these spaces, but these discussions are everything but productive. >> >> > I think they are very productive, we discuss things. I think you need >> > to start cooperating better with contributors and stop scaring them >> > off - work to get people active and interested in contributing instead >> > of having hierarchies and lack of trust. >> >> >> That said, if you want to continue to be under the castle umbrella >> >> then you'll have to invest time to make your valid points and persuade >> >> people on why you think your proposal/idea/suggestion are right, and >> >> by that I mean that "Further, I haven't agreed to it." isn't really >> >> effective. >> >> > You are correct; I think we are two very different types (or too >> > similar) types of people who have different cultural preferences on >> > how and in what manner discussions and decisions are to be made. >> >> > I consider it your responsibility to ask me (just CC me if I *need* to >> > reply to an e-mail) if you are making changes to a project which I >> > write code for. You can do this on github, skype or e-mail. If you >> > make decisions about projects that I write code for without asking me, >> > then that's a problem and not good leadership. It will cause threads >> > like this to surface. >> >> >> Our project bylaws define that we need majority approval, not >> >> everybody's approval. >> >> > You don't have this from this thread as far as I can see, unless you >> > mean 'majority of those replying within a time window conveniently >> > selected by myself'. >> >> >> Finally, I'd be fine reverting this particular merge, provided that >> >> miscommunications like this wont happen again. I'd also like to hear >> >> other input on this topic. >> >> > That is good news. Perhaps it would be fruitful to have monthly chats >> > over a higher-bandwidth protocol - say Skype, for example? This would >> > be easier to schedule and plan for me. >> >> > Henrik >> >> > On Oct 25, 3:39 pm, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 6:13 AM, Henrik <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > That's not a decision, it's a question that I'm answering. I see no >> >> > deadline in that question, to answer, and I have other work to do as >> >> > well than to read every e-mail that you send, in fact. >> >> >> That's true for all of us. I've spend most of my saturday to get this >> >> done. >> >> >> > First of all which I think is the worst actually, is the renaming of >> >> > the repo that invalidates ALL incoming links to it online... Bad for >> >> > search engines, bad for everyone. >> >> >> It's been done to make us more effective and we were aware of the >> >> drawbacks. >> >> >> > Secondly, unless we on top of the 'merge' also work out a method of >> >> > branching and stick to that branching method really well, I might be >> >> > affected by Windsor changes in ways I might not want to be. >> >> >> That's up for all of you to discuss with the team and set up. >> >> >> > Thirdly, I consider Castle.Transactions as well as Castle.IO top level >> >> > projects on their own, because they should be from a marketing >> >> > perspective as well as that they *are* from a technical perspective. >> >> > If you want to put AutoTx as a facility to Windsor; I'm fine with that >> >> > -- it depends on Windsor, but Castle.IO and Castle.Transactions don't >> >> > have any dependencies on Windsor and I'm even thinking about removing >> >> > the dependency on Castle.Core (fully doable). >> >> > Fourthly, marketing again, it would look better to have these as >> >> > separate repositories. >> >> > Fithly, if you merge them like that you are also forced to give access >> >> > to non-castle committers; Seb and Roy which are to have access to the >> >> > Castle.IO project - you haven't agreed to this, but it would be the >> >> > case for the IO project which I control, as opposed to the Windsor >> >> > project which is "less mine". >> >> >> Well, I'm may be missing the point here. You took over >> >> Castle.Transaction and forked it on your own. You gave access to >> >> non-committers, and you asked it to be included in the merge two days >> >> ago. You also created another project under the castle umbrella >> >> without our consent and control it under your own repos - at the same >> >> time you want the home page to link to it... >> >> >> I'm not sure of what to make of all of this, but my suggestion is that >> >> if you want to have full control over your projects, then make them >> >> your project and cut the link. >> >> >> You're a valuable contributor and I appreciate your domain expertise >> >> on these spaces, but these discussions are everything but productive. >> >> >> That said, if you want to continue to be under the castle umbrella >> >> then you'll have to invest time to make your valid points and persuade >> >> people on why you think your proposal/idea/suggestion are right, and >> >> by that I mean that "Further, I haven't agreed to it." isn't really >> >> effective. >> >> >> Finally, I'd be fine reverting this particular merge, provided that >> >> miscommunications like this wont happen again. I'd also like to hear >> >> other input on this topic. >> >> >> > Further, it makes for larger downloads from git which I might not want >> >> > to have my users go through. >> >> > Further, I haven't agreed to it. >> >> >> Our project bylaws define that we need majority approval, not >> >> everybody's approval. >> >> >> -- >> >> Cheers, >> >> hammetthttp://hammett.castleproject.org/ >> >> > -- >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> > "Castle Project Development List" group. >> > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > [email protected]. >> > For more options, visit this group >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> hammetthttp://hammett.castleproject.org/ > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Development List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
