On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 07:18 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
I think most of the edginess is simply fear of the unknown. Many of the ASF Members, like Greg, have not had the opportunity to interact with the ASF Committers working at Jakarta. Likewise, nearly all of us working at Jakarta have only interacted with a handful of the ASF Members. For good or ill, many of the key management lists at other ASF Projects are restricted, making it difficult for us to learn by example. Happily, this list is starting to fill that gap by documenting some of the missing usuage examples. =:0)
I think the most of the edginess is ignorance or rejection of the known, coupled with the most pessimistic possible assumptions of anything that is unknown.
How many folks have read the foundation pages at http://www.apache.org/ before joining a project? The bylaws and public records of ASF? Read about other ASF projects? Learned what it is they're getting involved with? Googled a bit to find out how ASF interacts with the world? Or to see how and why other projects in the past have failed or succeeded?
how many know they are supposed to? Googling is the solution? humm. Perhaps the most famous and capable web development organization should come up with a better method of organizing its web content than "go search on google for what it means to be part of the ASF"...
I'm not saying ASF shouldn't write stuff down. Perhaps we need an asf-docs project, since lots of this is not written down because people like to code, not doc.
I do think it's inaccurate to say that none of the information exists elsewhere. And I don't think that saying it's not all written down yet should be a valid excuse for not learning elsewhere. Would that reason be valid for any of us not to do our jobs? We all do research to understand what we need to write code; is it *that* unreasonable to expect folks to do a little research in the same vein regarding ASF?
Writing things down and even mandating they must be read is not going to get people who don't want to read them to do so. I am surprised that people must be made to know they should read and learn more about ASF. It seems to me like having to tell people they need to read the loan terms before buying a car or house. IMO some of this *should* go without saying.
Why would one expect people to read everything yet to be written down when it seems they have not read or want to read what is already written down?
Perhaps the bylaws are insuffiently disseminated. Sure its on the web... Sure its on the apache site...but have you read EVERYTHING on the apache site? OR do you read what you look for or what strikes you in the face immediately as being important. A basic rule of "send this link with this set of 'read this at minimum' to all committers" seems more sensible.
As opposed to expecting folks to want to learn about it? Pertaining to discussions on this list and reorg@, is it reasonable to assume that anyone *hasn't* read the bylaws?
For instance, I'd like very much to link the text version of the committer for to the jakarta webized version. I hear its not on the web but its in CVS... I have absolutely freaking no idea where.. . Sure its there...but a needle in the haystack.
I am not saying this to be trite, but that's what tools are for. I use the cshell alias
gff find !:1 -name "!:2" -exec grep "!:3" {} \; -printa lot here.
I believe most of us are very eager to learn. Like many good developers, we are not eager to reinvent the wheel. Frameworks are a favorite topic at Jakarta, and I'm sure virtually all of us are ready, willing, and able to adopt the ASF framework. It's just most of us are still learning how the ASF architecture is suppose to work.
On the contrary, I see the wheel being reinvented right here, right now. See the subject of this email. I think that is because people either don't want to know, or know and wish to ignore anything that doesn't agree with how they think things should work.
I disagree. This evolved from a desire for greater openness in the ASF and a more inclusive framework. Perhaps people such as Sam already see themselves as viable members capable of evolving the process and are working out new ideas. Perhaps he feels the ASF should be more open and is working to improve upon it and is already familiar with the existing system.
Perhaps. Can you see that there are other interpretations possible? Especially when it appears we are getting into a situation where we are chasing our collective tail? Or it appears that we are simply inventing process as we go here in the face of process that already exists?
Why is it that the issue is framed as ASF needing to learn about Jakarta, instead of as Jakarta needing to learn about the rest of the world and its history? Is it possible to see that the perception may well be that the community of committers that has arisen at Jakarta wants to know about nothing other than itself?
Perhaps that is not the most enlightened statement I've heard. Perhaps statements like this lead to disenfranchisement and make those Jakarta committers feel that way. Especially since you're attacking (I think) the very group whom have come here to try and bridge the gaps.
I made a statement about possible perception, not an accusation. I made it to broach the radical idea that Jakarta folks might not be seeing themselves in the light others are, and might also need to change themselves as well as change ASF. I think we already agree that ASF needs to change, and is doing so.
Chuck
