Stanfano:
ahahah, 'Stanfano' in some italian areas means 'they stink', that's the most creative mispell I had in years, that's :)
I rather surprised at your email - have included lots of comments/questions in-line.
Glad to surprise you.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
This project has been making progress around working together but there are issues unresolved:
1) solidify excalibur but stopping it to be a moving target
This is already in progress.
I know.
A couple of months agro we started a coordinated release process commencing with the release of the LogKit package following by the framework. Work has moved on to the packages under the excalibur CVS with iminent releases of the component,testcase, instrument, instrument-manager, logger, and pool packages. Work in underway for the release of serveral additional excalibur components including the lifecycle package.
Wasn't the proposal about migrating the lifecycle package into framework or did I overlook something?
=>> 2) clarify the future of cornerstone
Work has already been underten to seperate individual Corenerstone packages enabling some degreee of release control. The release process for individual corenerstone units will be undertaken following completion of the dependent excalibur packages.
Good.
3) stop one-man-shows
Can you be more specific - what in you view are the one-man shows that must stop?
I don't see many people working on Merlin. Is this a wrong perception?
Are these one-man shows related to released packages, packages scheduled for release, or are you referring to activities under the avalon-sandbox project.
I'm referring to Phoenix and Merlin. Both seem to me one-man-shows. But hopefully I'm wrong.
- o -
Peter said he didn't like your solution because he thought it was a hack. Guess what, I agree with him.
<snip-warm-and-fluffy-comment/>
Perhaps you could put forward you concrete arguments. Nothing below even suggests that you're familiar with the package in question. In fact several of the comments suggest that you may be confusing the lifecycle package with something else. You response on this is important because if you really think that the result of the collaboration between Marcus, Berin and myself is a "hack" - then I would like to discuss that will you. I will disagree with your position and present substantial evidence supporting that position. If however you comment is made with same level of indifference as the original hack comment from Peter Donald, then I can safely ignore it.
From there I stand:
1) something is moving into avalon framework
2) in my view of the world, this *something* is therefore going to be considered *ROCK* solid
3) in my view of the way this project should work, *ROCK* solid is something where we have consensus and has been discussed by many more than three people.
4) a person that I technically respect highly believes that this solution is half-baked (hack is a bad term) and there are better solutions on the table.
This is enough set my 'serious avalon users' alarms off.
If any of the above is wrong, please, enlighten me.
This project used to be the place where people discussed architectural issues about new paradigms that extended object orientation.
The lifecycle package was a successful process of collaboration by three people each with relatively different ideas on the approaches concerning lifecycle stage management under the Avalon framework.
I now see a forth disagreeing. This is valuable input from me.
It remains a good example of collaboration and effective resolution of architectural issues. Furthermore, it is a concrete demonstration of the willingness of different people to work together towards the achievement of common solutions on the container side of the Avalon equation.
Great, but now you are pushing this 'collaboration' at a higher level and this requires *more* consensus. Build it.
What happened to that?
Seems to me that it is alive and well. If you have been following the discussion here - there is a workplan that involes getting existing content released and managable, including the release of Fortress and later, Merlin. Berin and I have undertaken to work together on addressing the questions of ECM/Fortress component management in an architecture based on the Merlin Assembly package. This is part of the process of moving forward with the objective of resolving differences across Avalon.
Great.
But you are now moving stuff into avalon and one person strongly disagrees and another (me) wants to see why and wants to see more people involved when the framework gets touched.
the higher you get, the more consensus you need.
This is the only way we can maintain oversight over a codebase that is sooooo-down-the-foodchain.
>Since reaching consensus on Avalon 5 was too hard, several of you are trying to push your ideas into the framework by working it thru your one-man-show container.
I disagree. A5 is a subject that requires focus and solid consideration. I don't think a lot of progress will be made on that while the release process is underway. With the releases done, I fully expect the resumption of A5 discussions and hope that everyone here applies a constructive approach to the process.
This is the problem and Peter appears to be the only one *really* watching over what's going on in this project. Probably because he's doing some sneaky moves himself so he's more sensible about them.
I disagree. You comment ignores the time and effort people are putting into the release process. It ignores the time and effort people are putting into establishing a clean sandbox structure. It also ignores completely the community concensus reached on direction.
Sure, he uses his usual smartass tone that really used to irritate me, but I'm now able to sense his frustruation and I resonate with it.
Instead of putting forward a half-hearted attempt to justifiy the behaviour of Peter Donald
half-hearted? nono, full-hearted.
perhaps you could explain the frustrations that you resonate with. That would be constructive and helpfull (and>
certainly more constructive and helpful than some of the suggestions you have made in your email).
One-man-shows have to stop.
*all* of them.
Please be specific and either identity the project in question or actually state the issue. If you referring to the work that I have been leading with respect to the Merlin project then say so (but please be prepared to present you case in the context of the community involvement in that project).
Go right ahead.
I have no problems saying I was wrong in stating something.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
