Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: > > > I've been calling this way of doing software "open development" since > "open source" refers to the distribution of software, not the way the > development community is run. > > I don't want anybody (so myself included) to do anything behind the back > of anybody. Nor to make it appear that when (unfortunately rarely) > people get together in real life to talk, this appears as doing hidden > things or secret plans. > I must confess that perhaps my email, telling that I discussed blocks with Stefano, had exactly the message that we two are doing something behind the back of the community. But believe me, this is not the case! I totally agree with Stefano that "open development" is the way to go, otherwise sooner or later we would create friction in the community.
Concerning blocks, the only thing happened was that we discussed the proposal by Stefano which I didn't understand back then. We also discussed some parts which were not covered yet in the proposal. But discussing these things should and will only result in new proposals which will be presented. So all can take part in discussing, designing and implementing. But sometimes it's very hard to make complex concepts clear by simply exchanging emails. > The perception of openness is not only important, is the *key* to a > healhty stable and diverse community. > > > I like it. > > It is something I've seen as the logical conclusion for quite some > > time. Imagine - instead of deploying a war to deploy car (cocoon > > archives) and so on, cocoon webapps are raised to the same level > > as normal webapps. > > > > 2) I haven't been following cocoon-dev much. Your previous discussion > > was probably completely missed by me. > > > > I'll do a sum-up soon. > Great and thanks! Carsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
