Thanks Scott, I appreciate that. I hope you are able to continue enjoying it for a good long time.
-David On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way and that you've been treated in the > ways you describe below. > > I just want to say that I've read every single email you've written while > I've been subscribed to the lists (and a pretty large number of the ones > prior) and am immensely grateful for the knowledge you've shared with the > community and for the contributions you've made. > > Because of what you and Andrew started, I get to work on software that I love > every day while solving all sorts of interesting business problems. > > Regards > Scott > > On 17/03/2010, at 7:34 PM, David E Jones wrote: > >> >> I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot. >> >> Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out >> by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in >> all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives >> and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. >> According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute >> things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things >> intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for >> people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a >> small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and >> in private emails. >> >> I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet >> every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending >> their clients my way to help "sell" OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time >> and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of >> prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling >> pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. >> And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals >> after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake >> of recommending people or companies. >> >> So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm >> just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently >> experiencing. >> >> That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or >> the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for >> the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around >> interfering with the same. >> >> -David >> >> >> On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for >>> guidance, so I could contribute correctly. >>> If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much. >>> I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz. >>> >>> So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of >>> ofbiz. >>> >>> ========================= >>> BJ Freeman >>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com >>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >>> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> >>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >>> >>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >>> >>> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >>> Linkedin >>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> >>> >>> >>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM: >>>> 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... >>>> >>>> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and >>>> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the >>>> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping >>>> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying >>>> to describe. >>>> >>>> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a >>>> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I >>>> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge >>>> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of >>>> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a >>>> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years. >>>> >>>> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an >>>> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some >>>> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman. >>>> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how >>>> things are. >>>> >>>> -Adrian >>>> >>> >>> >> >
