On Tuesday 21 December 2004 05:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> >> Who wants to commit any code or do anything in an environment as
> >> poisonous as Avalon was at the time?
> > 4. So you don't want to spend any time in Avalon, but you really do want
> > to make it hard for everyone else? There has to be more than one to have
> > a disagreement.
> Regardless of whether there was any 'right' or 'wrong' position, it
> appears that there were irreducible differences. I only recall one
> side expressing a willingness to compromise. My memory may be imperfect,
I am sure that you have some very specific episode in mind, and by leaving
that out, it is hard to respond to it. I give you an example of what I call
'compromise' and 'collaboration' ;
* The Merlin camp was accused of bulldozing the people who supported the
* The Excalibur codebase was in a terrible shape and didn't build.
* Fortress was in slightly better shape, but couldn't build in a single
invocation, due to internal cyclic dependencies.
* Fortress and Excalibur has cyclic dependencies between them.
* There was a cyclic dependency that went via a project in the Incubator
* I spent several weeks (actual man-weeks) unnesting all of that, and making
it ready for a final release.
* I then spend additional unknown amount of time, to get the same codebases
(+Phoenix) to build in Gump.
(note, Steve helped out a lot in the above excersize, but was primarily
focusing on getting Merlin ready for a release.)
Now, if I have no sense of "collaboration", "taking care of the Legacy" and
"compromise" (in this case balancing my time between Excalibur vs Merlin),
then I have no clue what you guys expect from people.
If "inability of compromise" is the same as refusing to implement what others
think should be done, then just about every single project in ASF is guilty
as charged. Each individual works on what he/she finds interesting, relevant
and important. Opinions are appreciated, but by no means right, just because
a group within the community say so.
> >> The only ones willing to keep committing were
> >> those who were determined to bulldoze there agenda into the repository.
> > 5. In a positive atmosphere, it would be called; "Prepared to take
> > action, when paralysis had set into the community."
> ISTR some issues about ignored vetos and vetos without sufficient
(Don't know what ISTR stands for)
Ok, I would like to know of these vetoes. Not more FUD.
The only veto I know of that has been in dispute, is Leo Simons veto against
the new site, which in defense I say;
1. It came in late, long after the change was executed.
2. His issue was regarding the change of wording in the specification of the
AF4.2, which he claimed was an incompatible change for component authors.
3. In the midst of that clarification, heaps of people stepped in with other
issues, murking what is on the table of a veto and what is not;
- Berin Loritsch had a list of issues, IIRC, mostly concerning missing
redirect links, and I recall the final conversation with him that his
concerns were all addressable.
- Stefano Mazzocchi jump in, making a big thing about the Avalon Legacy and
the people who was before (without noticing that he himself, together with a
few others had been properly ADDED to the list of developers, which
previously was missing before I dug into it.), which led to a Ford
Thunderbird analogy (which *I* found amuzing).
4. Most people having negative reaction, fuelling the flames were not part of
the "daily" Avalon community. Steve made the mistake of trying to defend our
choices, which got out of hand and he resigned in response to make sure
everything cool down.
But that was all about Leo Simons veto... I am sure you must be talking about
> > The agenda was to promote Merlin
> > into a platform for component oriented architecture. When that was
> > considered being against approx half the PMC and some additional
> > developers, we started the process of taking Merlin to TLP, but the
> > Excalibur group just needed to be better, and by throwing in a second
> > proposal, at least one member of the Board intervened privately, and
> > asked us to drop the Merlin TLP and forge ahead with the new vision. Now,
> > I call that a mandate.
> Please clarify what you mean by 'mandate' here. That the board was
> mandating that you drop the Merlin TLP idea?
Mandate that the Board, or parts thereof, thought it was better to spin the
Legacy into a new project and let Avalon grow into a Merlin-based community
and the visions we had.
> > Yet, Excalibur TLP
> > without me and Steve was manna from heaven for this group, but it was
> > definately a matter of balkanization along people and not technology.
> > Something Mr Coar would never agree to.
> One thing I don't agree to is people putting words in my mouth. Please
> cease doing so.
So you want the quote? You have been hammering me before for publicizing
<quote timezone="UTC+0800" >
On Monday 27 September 2004 22:37, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> > So let's cut straight to the chase;
> > What are the severe reservations that you seem to have against the Metro
> > proposal? Just spill it out so we can solve it :o)
> it appears to me to be a balkanisation based on people rather than on
That was the only reason you stated against the Metro proposal. I can accept
that "never" is a bit strong, but I can't interpret your response in any
> I believe this is a cultural miscommunication. I think Aaron meant grief
> as in 'giving grief':
Ok. A better choice of words could have been appropriate... ;o)
> In any event, on the face of it I consider your 'my dear little boy' remark
> to be condescending, offensive, and uncalled-for. But that too might be
> a lingual/cultural misunderstanding.
Perhaps. I was trying to portray a) he is younger than me, b) seems to be
innocent of not having been exposed to gruelling sadness and grief.
/ http://www.dpml.net /
/ http://niclas.hedhman.org /
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]