El lun, 29-05-2006 a las 15:12 +0200, Michael Wechner escribió: > Thorsten Scherler wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > lately I am concerned about our community. > > > > I see many strong individuals that have different philosophies about the > > way this project should work and how we should develop our code. > > > > This normally is not a problem for other projects here on Apache because > > people just swallow their ego and trying to find a consensus on a > > project base. In the sense of what is best for the *PROJECT* (!!!), here > > it seems very different. > > > > Instead of reaching a consensus it seems some people just do their own > > thing and not care too much about the opinion of this community. Latest > > examples is our guideline discussion that just stopped because we could > > not get a consensus in starting it. This is quite typical for this > > project, someone rejects a proposed way, regardless that she is alone in > > this rejection, and then the whole issue does not get touched for the > > next three month. > > > > well, I don't think it's 3 months since then
No, that is a general observation and with the guidelines this will hopefully not happen. > and I would argue in my case > that I would have more time to help on the guidelines if I wouldn't have > to fix stuff which got broken ... Everybody is involved in her real life and other projects. Nobody can be constantly 100% involved in this community and this is perfectly alright. The guidelines is a general example for a pattern in discussion I see. > > Re the guidelines in particular my point was that we start with a clean > sheet and use the Forrest guidelines > for inspiration so I don't see any reason why we cannot progress there > step by step, e.g. starting with an index/contents. Here we go again. ...and that is exactly the point. I and other do not see any reason why to do it step by step. Like Gregor said because we can is not a reason. I still do not see any reason why we have to do it like *you* want. It would help this community if you drop your position of a blank paper since you are the *only* one that supports it where other started the real discussion about guidelines. > > Another phenomenon is the lenya fork that some committer are developing > > outside of the ASF. > what forks? You might want to be explicite on this. Please read our dev and user mails carefully. There you find solprovider talking about such efforts. > > > IMO that is very scary, but I see this as > > consequence of a week community that is not able to find consensus. It > > seems that we prefer to go the way of least resistance. I would like to > > have a branch for the fork here in our code base. This way we all can > > review the work and hopefully enhance usability. > > > > IMO we *all* need to get a grip and try to solve this problem. We cannot > > waste resources in having endless discussions or having good ideas in a > > non ASF fork. > > > > again, what fork? see above > > How can we solve this problem? > > > > by listening to each other and not just doing stuff with high potential > of breaking things without discussing it beforehand. This is what really > destroys a community. Many problems that currently occurred (like the broken trunk) can be prevented with guidelines (stable trunk policy, when changes may violate this policy then the work needs to be done in a branch and then merged back). See the guidelines thread about a discussion on it. Blocking guidelines by forcing other to do it in a particular way is destroying a community. A broken trunk is not nice but it can be fixed by a good community. Further we explicitly state on http://lenya.apache.org/1_4/index.html "Warning Apache Lenya 1.4 is still under heavy development and should not be used for production yet." If people ignore this warning then they doing it on their own risk, or? Now a "stable trunk policy" in combination with a branch policy in our guidelines may have prevented this, don't you think? > > Also I think one needs to be aware that a "democracy" can get stuck and > one shouldn't be frustrated by this, but rather one > should re-collect and then try it again from another angle. > ...but not if *one* person is vetoing all the time. That is burning the one that is proposing because she needs to re-do the whole process again and again from different angles. > Also I think the Lenya community should think about what meritocracy > actually means within this community This is part of the guidelines, therefore we first need to have/discuss a guideline for it. > and why > Lenya exists. I do not understand? I thought that is http://lenya.apache.org/charter.html for. > If we don't find consensus on this, then we will never be > able to get along and move "beyond". ...because you say so? salu2 -- thorsten "Together we stand, divided we fall!" Hey you (Pink Floyd) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
