-----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]
