-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 December 2004 05:05, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>>
>> 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,
>> though.
> 
> 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.

And I have no clew why you think I'm speaking specifically about you,
nor why you're dragging 'legacy' and 'collaboration' into your reply to
me.

>> ISTR some issues about ignored vetos and vetos without sufficient
>> justification.
> 
> (Don't know what ISTR stands for)

'I Seem To Recall'

> 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;

There is no statute of limitations on vetos.  There is no deadline.
When a veto is made, it must be supported by technical justification.
There are two ways to deal with a veto: 1) Address the concerns and
get the vetoer to rescind it; or 2) let it stand and the vetoed aspect
stays out (getting removed if necessary) of the code.  It can't get
much clearer than that.

>> > 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.

That's nothing like a mandate in any of its definitions.  You appear
to be using heavily loaded terminology to excuse something, and using it
incorrectly at that.  Someone privately makes a request, and you're
interpreting it as an official position of all (or a majority) of the
board?

>> > 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 
> private mails....
> 
> <quote timezone="UTC+0800" >
> On Monday 27 September 2004 22:37, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Niclas Hedhman wrote:
> <snip/>
>> > 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
>> technology.
> </quote>
> 
> 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 
> other way.

Then you're being uncommonly obtuse, and apparently only to suit your own
purposes.  'I have a serious reservation about this because it appears to
be xxx' is a loooong way from 'I will never agree to this because it is
definitely xxx.'  And evidently you did absolutely nothing to 'solve' (your
word) or otherwise address my reservation -- either that or you're hauling
out my remark sans context in order to support your current point.

Either way, you put words in my mouth, and I requested that you stop.
Dredging out personal email (which, yes, you didn't bother to ask about first,
but in *this case* I don't mind) doesn't make that acceptable.  So this
handwave doesn't excuse you claiming that I would 'never accept' something.
And I ask again that you stop.  Phrasing it 'which I don't think Mr Coar would
ever accept' is okey, because it makes it clear that you're stating your
*guess* of how I would react.

As far as it goes, I continue to stand by that reservation.  IMHO, setting
up a TLP because the would-be participants can't get along with the other
people in their current TLP -- or those people can't get along with them --
is not a good path.  Among other things, it could give both sets of people
the idea that being fractious and divisive is acceptable behaviour.
- --
#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBQcedhJrNPMCpn3XdAQEuPgQAsPGg6DEgvE4pm8SZ5nuemysQqZo4fTo5
9UVf7fnuJJHwTObdxPE2wQq0cH8DEtApC69hzEij7L+M3WGcGafCdyod2lSfm41M
GVtmMtNxbyInPQK9rR2VyIMoQQjgxAU3eM6w9ZQX2BmLROAJBdc/Kpy8r8cZgu3r
uPEqG89frQ0=
=DGOy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to