Okay, after reading the e-mails thus far ( I haven't read through all of them yet ) here are my
responses inline.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Aaron,
Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow
anyone that you have sent a private
e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other
posts on this thread. I think
that will help.
Sure.
Thanks.
Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is
probably a good place to start.
Here is a snip from whois of that domain. I removed the address
specific information.
Registrant:
Address is provided *Removed*
Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM
Created on: 11-Apr-06
Expires on: 11-Apr-07
Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06
Administrative Contact:
Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Technical Contact:
Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one,
and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue). I've offered a
number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and
so far, no one's taken me up on it. My goals are to provide a Maven
repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL,
proprietary. Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious
enoguh to provide one. And now you're jumping on her for it? That's
gratitude!
Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories
is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available
sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time.
What is your counter-proposal?
Create a zone at Apache that will service this concept. This would require talking to the infra
team to do this. Perhaps this was already done and we didn't see the traffic on the dev list. If
ther ewaw I apologize for the assertion.
Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes. I
was working to release 1.1 and
you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release. I don't think that
we agreed on how to handle
JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization
mechanism since you were not
releasing 1.1.
Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira. I thought I was
using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the
issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing
to work on what. Including, of course, a todo list for myself.
I honestly had no idea that as release manager, you considered Jira to
be your domain, and didn't want people using without what -- your
approval? By all means, if you object to something I do like that,
please say something! "Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the
tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's
*definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks" or whatever. I
don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact.
Fair enough that you hadn't considered JIRA as a release management tool. We3 never discussed it
and perhaps from my perspective it seemed obvious. Teh point is you used it for your purposes
without a prior e-mail to the community about your intentions. When you did move things back in I
assumed a different strategy on how to manage the release. Your intent being declared prior to
moving the JIRAs would have allowed the community to interact and decided on a common course.
We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was
all about what YOU wanted which
may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term
I was introduced several
times. I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives.
Yes of course. I was explaining how I want to use an issue-tracking
system. (Were your posts about how Jeff wants to use an issue
tracking system?) I thought the point of the thread was for everyone
to say what they're looking for so we can then decide the best way to
do it as a group.
Perhaps this was an unfair example. You used the terms I an I need so I took that to be more
focused on your desires rather than community focused. If I mis-understood then I apologize.
Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed
that specifically excluded
members of the community. I'd be happy to bring that discussion to
the list if you like. Given
that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are
somewhat culpable but given that
you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to
have that discussion in the open
as well.
Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few
other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about
so long as we were all together. I'm sorry that there's a perception
of an exclusionary wall. It was on us to pay for the food, which at
hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't
able to invite the entire Geronimo community. I apologize to everyone
in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't
invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get
together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the
discussion points to the mailing list. If you objected, why am I
first hearing about it now?
And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do? If
it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer,
and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should
happen? If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or
phone calls discussing Geronimo issues? Or are you going to provide
an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of
the night for the convenience of the Asian community?
I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned
as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
was.
I was present at the meeting and as a consequence as culpable as the next person. I did object at
the meeting but there seemed to be strong avoidance to including some people so I backed off. I was
wrong.
I'm not sure the cost of lunch should ever be the deciding factor in a meeting and in hind sight
should never have allowed it to be a factor. The commiters themselves should have been allowed the
option as to whether they could or could not have attended. We took too much on our shoulders for
the decision making process.
In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list
allowing folks to paste their private
notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your
request. I'm happy to oblige.
??? I sense you have a major issue with some e-mail I've sent, though
in all honesty, I don't know what it is. Did I say that IBM has a
secret plan to rule the world? (Don't you? :) In any case, be my
guest.
Yes, you are right. I do plan on ruling the world. Hopefully through our contributions as a
[project to the community. As I described earlier, IBM has a challenge in determining the amount of
influence to bring to bear on a project. Our hope at IBM is that Geronimo (thus WAS CE) will be
the first choice in open source AppServers. I expect that is the intention of everyone on the project.
Here is the snippet I was referring to in private e-mail ... "I'm not sure if IBM has an internal
road map with dates that I'm not privvy to, if it's all in your head, or if somehow you've announced
this but I've missed it. "
Of course we have an internal roadmap. It was based on communication on the list in January where
there was discussion about releasing once a month or earlier. Seems we missed that goal and once
very five months hadn't been discussed. As a whole our project didn't live up to our talk. I think
we need to address this.
Thanks,
Aaron
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>
> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
>
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No
one can
>> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
there. And
>> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> working toward are.
>> >
>> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
(i.e., a
>> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
help on
>> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
volunteer
>> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> > immensely.
>>
>> I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made
things
>> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
group
>> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo. I
>> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
panacea.
>>
>> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> talking about "secret" agendas. This would dismay me as I fully
expect
>> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think
>> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >
>> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
determining
>> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
difficult.
>> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02.
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>
>
>
>
