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?
If they do not know what questions to ask, how are they to find the answers? I have read what documentation was apparent to me and I feel I have a reasonable understanding of how things work.....but what if I don't? How do I know what the base set of information I should know is?
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.
No but organizing the information into a "this is the minimum you should know" will lead many people to read at least that. Then they will hopefully ask more questions.
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?
I've read them, but many people didn't subscribe to it at first, some people don't speak english natively and so the legalistic language may not be very digestable.
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" {} \; -print
a lot here.
and what do you suggest I search on exactly. Do you feel that this kind of searching would be okay given the poor performance of the web server over the last few days?
Honestly it didn't occur to me to shell in and grep through the hundreds of megs of... I shall do so. (Though not via C shell which I have a great deal of distaste for :-p)
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?
"because thats the way we've always done it" -- perhaps a more constructive way to put this would be "Can we work to propose the changes formally before beginning to propose members on the community list and chaning the process ad hoc, would it not be better for sam to first put this up to a vote or something before just doing this"
On the other hand, perhaps sam regards doing this as free speech leading up to a formal revision of the process. I guess I'll leave that up to sam rather than speculate. While I've been posting proposed solutions to the problems as they are brought up and listing the tradeoffs as I see them and asking for further input (thereby trying to capture multiple viewpoints) , I think we're making progress on trying to build a more cohesive and open community... But then again, I'm a crazy man.
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.
It seems a great deal of focus has been put on how to change Jakarta... I do not feel persistantly harping on the idea is productive without concrete and constructive ideas. I think we should begin talking about "Whats good" and "how do we improve it" rather than focusing on individuals and groups within the whole (singling them out) and finding what sucks about them. "Perhaps the HTTPD crowd is too autocratic and secretive" -- is that a productive statement? No. "Lets work on finding things that are currently discussed in secret, figure out why and how they can be made more open. For instance currently.... I suggest...." -- The same general statement --- only its connotation is very different. Thats how I feel about it.
-Andy
Chuck
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
