On 16/03/2010, at 10:46 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 16/03/2010, at 10:15 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard >>>>>>>>> to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a >>>>>>>>> bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for >>>>>>>>> this and that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is. >>>>>>>> Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in >>>>>>>> this thread. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative >>>>>>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend >>>>>>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even >>>>>>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than >>>>>>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that >>>>>>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was >>>>>>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role >>>>>>> anyway... >>>>>> >>>>>> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have >>>>>> to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it >>>>>> back when you were more involved. I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair >>>>>> position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide >>>>>> on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly >>>>>> acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the >>>>>> point you're trying to get across. >>>>> >>>>> My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do >>>>> nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for >>>>> community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven >>>>> primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists >>>>> that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few >>>>> product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not >>>>> a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects. >>>>> >>>>> While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is >>>>> allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it) >>>> >>>> You make this sound like a policy >>> >>> I'm just referring to the ASF policy as for certain things not allowed on >>> project sites. >> >> Okay so there is a policy, that's great, let's use it. > > At risk of repeating myself: "While we don't allow blatant marketing on the > official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific > places for it), but we have historically allowed linking to resources that > are not part of OFBiz but that are about the project and add value for users > and contributors." > > I guess I'll have to spell it out more. Explicit marketing is not allowed, > but various people and companies get around that by creating documentation > and other resources that might be of interest to users of OFBiz and then > posting links to those on the home page under the news section or other > places in order to draw traffic to their sites, ie for marketing purposes. > > Is that too harsh an accusation, or unclear enough that you need specific > examples?
Harsh, I wouldn't call it harsh. I would even call it an accusation because I don't see the wrongdoing. > BTW, to be clear, I'm not complaining about people doing this. Others at the > ASF probably disagree, but I think it's an acceptable way to contribute and > get recognition. I guess you don't see it as wrongdoing either. > I'm complaining about the hypocrisy and unwillingness to work with others and > give people a chance. Oh oh, you've lost me again. Now I'm going to need an example of hypocrisy and not giving people a chance. If you choose to reply to nothing else in this email that's fine, but I would really appreciate some clarification here. > And yeah, I guess those are accusations as well. They most certainly are. > I guess I could now add another to the list: blinding defensiveness. I prefer to call it ongoing requests for clarification of your position. I'm not attempting to defend anything, I'm just trying to understand what you're going on about because I genuinely didn't have any idea (although I'm almost beginning to understand, thank you for persevering in the face of my apparent blinding defensiveness). > I could go on all day... my mind was definitely corrupted by therapists when > I was younger, and unfortunately I haven't forgotten all of that and in all > of that I learned well the finer art of being an @$$hole. You are gifted there is no doubt about it :-) > In any case, I'm sorry if there's anything in your personal life that is > making you touchy on this. I'm not touchy on it at all, we're just having a discussion. > I know that was the case for me after being in a circumstance similar to one > you might be in right now, and if that's the case I don't envy you that > position one bit. I'm starting to get the impression that you are the one who is touchy about something. If that is the case then I'm sorry you feel that way and I hope it is not clouding your judgement. Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
