pace vobiscum!
Speaking only for myself, I think that geronimo and the people involved are top-notch. The project and the people are too good to allow this sort of devolution. I really think that where one feels heat seeking light would be preferrable. And, I want to say that often I am the worst example of violating that sound principle. Geronimo rocks!
By the way, a friend is trying to subscribe and is having trouble because his subscriptions are bouncing because the address is not real. Where does one get subscription to the list addresses today? The one at http://incubator.apache.org/projects/geronimo/#Mailing+Lists does not seem to work.
Michael McGrady
Bruce Snyder wrote:
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
Last Thursday, Aaron Mulder and I had a heated but healthy technical discussion on this list about the implementation of certain features in the new deployer. It became clear to both of us that continuing to use email was getting unproductive and Aaron pinged me on IM to see if we could discuss them directly.
We had a very productive hour-long discussion, clarified areas where we agreed and where we both saw issues, and came to consensus on how to proceed. Aaron summarized this to the list here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9712
which basically says he was going to commit his new stuff for online deployment and offline packaging. He also inquired here:
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9713
about how to create a experimental branch which he planned to use to check in the code for the areas that had issues that still needed to be resolved so that the entire community could see them and discuss.
At the same time I promised to email the list a detailed description of the issues as I saw them. I told Aaron that this would take a couple of days and that things were really busy at work (for the record my company was in crunch mode getting a release done).
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9721
The response to this by two members of the community was bitter and personal, almost indicative of paranoid delusion. In a stream of vitriolic email mostly with other community members I have been accused that my behaviour is not in the "Apache Way", of trying to create a "back channel", of not directing opinion to the list, of not fulfilling my obligation to vote, and had my motivations treated with suspicion.
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9714
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9717
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9718
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9727
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9743
This is neither healthy nor technical. This behaviour is harmful to the reputation and perception of this community and this project. It will not be condoned.
My promised description of the issues I saw has been sent to the list and is available at
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/[EMAIL PROTECTED]&msgNo=9851
Let us civily seek consensus and get this behind us.
Per these disagreements, I think that we should address them before we move on simply because I don't want to be bitten by these same issues again. I suggest that we learn from this issue and set forth some guidelines for the future.
As for the discussion being taken offline, ASF project management and collaboration within the ASF is clearly spelled out here:
http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
and sets forth a rule that email will be the communication medium of choice, but also allows for IRC and IM. I suggest that we either:
a) only use the email lists for dicussions
b) use email and IRC for discussions (and post IRC server logs)
c) use email, IRC and IM for dicussions (and post IRC and IM logs)
Jeremy clearly stated that he would post a summary of the discussion but others disgreed (wanting to be part of the discussion, I gather). The summary after the fact still allows for comment, but disallows being part of the actual discussion. It seems that this is another point where we should agree on a guideline for the future. I suggest that we either:
a) allow offline discussions with a summary after the fact
b) disallow offline discussions with a summary after the fact
These are small issues yet they wield considerable affect on the progress of the project. Setting forth some guidelines now can potentially save us loads of time in the future.
In addition, I propose that future calls for votes only be sent out only after a discussion has taken place surrounding said issue. I feel that some of the calls for vote have occurred too early in the deliberation of an issue.
These are simple administrative issues that can be easily solved. Let's not let these small items divide us.
Bruce
