On Dec 18, 2007 3:28 AM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You made many good points but I need to correct some. > > On Dec 18, 2007 3:51 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip/> > > > (4) I won't go into detail to keep some things private but I know you > wanted > > to find this thread [1] because it was one which you suspected was a > veto > > against you. You explicitly searched for and found this thread after > some > > recent events. > > I have never searched for that thread. What I searched for was a vote > about inviting someone into the PMC. Moreover, what's up with the > veto from the community? If the community doesn't like my idea, then > that's OK. > > People can veto my idea, but I also have my right to keep persuading > my idea as long as I think it's really right and it is the > responsibility of the community to pursuade me that my point is wrong > or it's just a matter of trade-off. Additionally, we didn't have > issues related with framework on top of framework (or library) and > logger reentrancy at that time, and that's why I think we need to > reconsider the previous decision. > > I don't feel offended by the decision of the community. What really > dismays me is this kind of personal offense. Saying 'I won't go into > detail to keep some things private' just makes me laugh; what would > people imagine about me? Is this intentional to spread out some > conspiracy theory? >
Again you're misunderstanding. You and I privately discussed a couple things surrounding point (4) in a discussion. I just considered some of the thing you said to me as private. I did not want to reiterate them here without asking you first. This is why I made that comment, "I won't go into detail to keep some things private". I'm trying to respect your privacy. You're presuming incorrectly again. > > > However, regarding this thread coming back to life, it occurred right > after > > you explicitly searched for it. You wanted to bring it up again, > primarily > > because it was an outstanding issue that you felt was legitimate. Most > > importantly, it did not unfold in the manner you wanted it to be > addressed. > > Again, I did never searched for it both implicitly and explicitly, and > please note we got two new issues related with the current logging in > MINA which were discovered very recently. You are saying that I will > do the best for MINA and I want to control this project at the same > time by saying 'Most importantly, it did not unfold in the manner you > wanted it to be addressed.' It sounds like I am driving this project > for my personal benefit and you are upsetting me seriously. > There is nothing negative about this 'it did not unfold in the manner you wanted it to be addressed' statement. This is a simple fact. It's a point you made before and the outcome was not the way you wanted. There are several outcomes I wanted that never occurred either in various communities here. The community just disagreed months ago. This is just a statement. If you feel threatened by that then you need to grow a thinker skin. > > This is all fine, but I'm wondering why David kicked it off and joined > in. > > I'm not suggesting we have a "follow the leader" situation but the > > possibility is starting to occur regularly in my head. This is > happening > > because I fear having the merits of my points undermined by back channel > > coordination. Again I am not accusing you of it. I am stating it as a > > concern and something that my reasoning points to as a possibility. > > You don't need to worry about that at all. I found David and I have > similar idea about logging and he is also the author of a framework > that suffers with many logging framework JARs. He has his concern and > I have to resolve his concern as a committer of MINA project not as a > colleague of him. Of course, our employer provides a private IRC > channel, but please note that our communication about MINA almost > always occurred in #mina channel at freenode.net or this mailing list. > > > Thankfully, the majority, of individuals on thread [0], naturally > opposed > > the emergence of yet another logging API. If they did not, then my > voice or > > any other opposing voice, would be drowned out. As a well respected and > > empowered member of this community, you should try to prevent your over > > whelming stature from drowning out fainter voices of reason. > > It sounds like that I have ever tried to bury someone's voice. Did I > get something wrong? > No but I think you can do it unknowingly. You wield a lot of public opinion here which is dangerous. Sometimes, myself included, people tend to just go along with what you say or what you vote on without complete analysis. > > > Sometimes > > there is no absolute right or wrong decision and it's a trade off. So, > when > > you possess so much influence, the responsible thing to do is to look > out > > for those that have less influence but are trying to make a point for > the > > benefit of the project. > > Who have less influence and who have more? Do I have more influence > over this issue? Or... is that you? I might have more influence in > overall decision, but this thread is not the case as you already know. > I don't have much influence since I'm one voice in many who thinks pursuing this logging thing is too much. > I think > it's even against the spirit of the open source activity; it's rather > the violence over potential users. "violence against users" - you probably meant something else. I'll just ignore this ridiculously sounding phase as a mistaken choice of words. > > > > The majority has expressed it's disinterest with this idea and sometimes > you > > need to yield to the community over your own beliefs of what is the best > > route. Let the community find out for itself if it is wrong. Besides, > they > > got your message. They already have the information for your approach > > imprinted twice now in the archives. If the rest of us is wrong we can > > revisit the topic. It's fair to say, the majority is still not > interested > > in pursuing yet another logging API to be maintained by MINA. So can we > > drop this, please? > > To finish this discussion, Maarten or any other community members will > have to provide a better alternative to my idea. No this is where you are mistaken. You're not in a position to just say Maarten's position is not good enough. The majority is there with Maarten. So this is over until we get more data. When we disagree like this it's better to shelve the discussion for a later date when we have more data then to keep forcing it and hurting relationships which are more important. > Why are you and they > ignoring those minorities who have *less influence* really by saying > 'just live with it'? Look I am one of those minorities too on projects other than Directory. I use MINA with other applications that are based on commons logging. It's just not enough of a big deal having an extra dependency. It's much more of a PITA with the approach you and David are suggesting. > There are people out there who just can't live > with it. I live with it. I bet others here who opposed this idea do also in different areas. We have many occasions where projects use other logging frameworks. > Shoule we let people drop MINA from their dependency like I > did for Commons BeanUtils just because of logging? No but you cannot do everything for everybody. > That is a real > nonsense. > It's not nonsense when people disagree. Don't pull a tantrum. As a member of the PMC I'm going to ask you to just cut this out and discuss this topic again after 12 months or so. If you need a veto which you seem to be searching for you'll get it. Binding -1. So let's move on. I have no idea what is happening to you. I have known you for a long time. You're acting way out of character recently and I don't want to analyze why that is much less publicly. Alex
