[sorry, been offline for a few days and don't want to re-start a thread that seems to have come to a conclusion, just need to clarify one thing]
On 2017-04-14, Gilles wrote: > On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote: >>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: >>>> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA >>>> issues raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't >>>> :-) >>> A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that >>> stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.] >>> But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which >>> he let pass... >> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are >> trying to attack me but I hope you are not. > English is not my native language, but I don't think that the > sentence you refer to contains anything offensive: "one" is not > "you". Thank you. The way to construct the attack is that I talk about me and you talk about "one" and I had no reason to assume the "one" could be anybody other than me. I'm still not sure why you said the above at all as Emmanuel wasn't participating in the conversation at all. Thanks for clarifying it. >>> Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone >>> willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments from >>> someone not intending to back them with actual work (same >>> reference): >> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to >> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This >> takes time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development >> approach can move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based >> development that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with >> our github repos on our own. > It's also my opinion that we are more strongly contributing to the > open source model by being a team. But I often have the feeling that > the PMC operates as an aggregate of individualities rather than as a > community. Well, that's because we are all individuals. :-) For Commons it is more difficult to form a community than for most "normal" ASF projects as the least common denominator is much smaller. In "normal" project you've got a product vision and a shared code base to align folks. All we've got is the goal to produce something useful - where many of us have different ideas of what will be useful - and the idea of doing so via collaboration. IMHO we need to accept that we are a pretty diverse bunch of people. We've got different reasons for being here and we are certainly different in our approaches of reaching our goals. Mutual respect is what can bind us - and I believe this is what was lost in the MATH case. > There are low-level requirements (naming of releases, vote counts, > etc.), but hardly any policies. Well, some of us may enjoy working here because we don't have that many rules and policies. I think I am one of those. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
