I've tried to stay out of this thread(s), but I just have to say, "give me a break." James was one of Avalon's most visible users, and I simply cannot stand to hear someone from Avalon criticize the ASF establishment about the treatment of Avalon users.
Perhaps it could be argued that the following list positions James as a visible user of dead, never released, unreproducible, redundant and unsupported technology? I couldn't say. But I would like to know if this is what you meant by the ASF establishment taking care of the James community?
Stephen,
This is a straw man argument, because this is completely unrelated to my primary point, which was that nobody had malicious intentions. It also implies that had the board allowed you to create your TLC or Aaron hadn't shutdown Avalon, James would have had a better set of dependencies.
But I'll play along for a moment.
Projects have layers of responsibility. You, as a primary actor in the Avalon community, failed and are largely to blame for James' dependency situation. Since you failed, Aaron had a responsibility as PMC chair to do something, and he should be sainted for what he did.
Had Aaron failed, the board would had the opportunity to act, and had we reached that point, I could have made a judgement on whether the nefarious "they" were taking care of the James community.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]
Can we start a new mailing list called [EMAIL PROTECTED] and somehow redirect all avalon-related emails to that?
-- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
