Openness indeed.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs
one
Which project? Geronimo? The plugins effort?
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!
The problem here is perceptual. There wasn't a 'hey, what do people
think about this?' message first, and being presented with the site
as a fait accompli was unsettling.
What is your counter-proposal?
IMHO, more 'what do people think' before doing things that
are high-profile or difficult to back out. Or at all, for that
matter.
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.
If a release is in process, assigning a bunch of bugs into it
without at least consulting the people involved in it --
especially the release manager -- is bad form. For one thing,
it can make the release manager look like a jerk.
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.
But it didn't occur to you that the versioning of the
JIRAs was related to the versioning of the release? And
that the release manager should maybe be consulted?
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.
I can't see that as anything but a handwave. At least
one person, possibly two, has told me that at the meeting
he asked, 'Can I tell Geir where we are?' and received an
emphatic, 'No. Geir's not welcome here.' That's pretty
clearly exclusionary. Perhaps that question wasn't asked
of *you*. I'll let the querist(s) speak up with exact
details of who asked whom what and got what response if
he/they don't mind.
Also, now that you've given blanket permission, here's what
you said when I asked for a copy of the invitation message:
Here is a copy for you, but I feel pretty strongly that this is not
an appropriate subject for the dev list.
Not exclusionary? You felt even the *subject* wasn't appropriate
for discussion. And from the text of the invitation itself:
I'd like to keep this group fairly focused... thus the limited
distribution.
That doesn't sound like 'let's keep the numbers small so
we can afford lunch.'
If you objected, why am I first hearing about it now?
Here is where some of the intimidation issue raises its
head. Matt says:
I did object at the meeting but there seemed to be strong avoidance
to including some people so I backed off.
Jeff has also mentioned:
Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email
to me started out with "Watch your tone". This is the intimidation
stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit.
That's directed specifically at you, and about offline
interactions; but re the J1 meeting, that someone felt
he had to back down rather than argue his point sounds
like peer pressure brought to bear.
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?
Of course not. But selecting who's allowed to be there
and who isn't, and actively excluding project committers,
isn't the "right" thing under any circumstances. So what's
the right thing? We can figure it out.. but we now have an
example of a *wrong* thing. No amount of handwaving,
persiflage, or rhetoric is going to turn this sow's ear
into a silk purse.
I'm glad you've changed your mind and want all of the
back-channel crap brought out into the open. I consider
that to be progress. For myself, the purpose of not being
specific was to protect people who didn't want to be
directly identified.
--
#ken P-|}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
