David, all I have to say is that you are one of the two most important persons (the other one is my father) for my professional life.
Jacopo On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:34 AM, 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 >>> >> >> >
