Bruce Snyder wrote:
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together,
they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and
let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they
can work together.
Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this
mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in
some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or
anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them
to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
conversation to the list after the fact?
I don't think that an all list requirement is appropriate. We have to allow for people having
conversations that are not privy to everyone's consumption. However, where those discussion turn
into a collusion about how the project should unfold then I think it has turned to an innapropriate
level.
I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from
so many people about this topic. Please help me understand.
Bruce
