If you are lost in bad sentences let me know :)
Forgot to proof read :(


Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> Avik Sengupta wrote:
>> I "dont care" about this vote (any more). I do care deeply about POI. I
>> do care about Apache and Jakarta. I resent the opposite presumption on
>> less than rock-hard grounds, because it is a pretty big accusation.
> As noted in my analyses, I stated that I could be misinterpreting things.
>> The fact that the POI and remaining jakarta communties are separate is a
>> FACT. Most people on this thread seems to have turned it into a
>> JUDGEMENT. If that does not gel well with what the 'oversight'
>> requirements, we need to find a way to work WITH the community, rather
>> than attack it.
> See my reply to the board report (where you stated the wording was harsh).
>> All open source project projects contributors go thru highs and lows of
>> contribution. Commiters come and go, some permanently, some temporarily.
>> (I recall reading a well written account of this from either Brian or
>> Stefano.. cant remember... anyone have a link). At POI, we're lucky
>> enough to have fresh blood coming in at regular intevals (as with most
>> open source projects, usually from nowhere, surprising you with their
>> commitment and great code..). Once again, we need to work with this
>> phenomenon, rather than condemn the whole project on that basis.
> Condemning the project isn't what my goal is. And I think I made clear in 
> other mails that POI is
> pretty healthy with development, user base, etc. (Since I am not a user of 
> POI, I cannot judge it
> technically, although I assume you wouldn't have any users if it was 
> technically bad).
>> The charge of insularity can go both ways. This thread is only about SNV
>> access. Can I not ask how many of the indignant correspondents on this
>> thread have taken the effort to come and help us get things right on the
>> poi dev lists? However, that's an argument that wont get us anywhere, so
>> lets not go down that path.
> There were efforts in the past (see my board report reply) and I was thinking 
> of taking a different
> approach, which I described in the board report too.
>> So in reply to every other offer of help, welcome! But I dont
>> understand, why do people want to  be an officially anointed 'mentor'
>> before helping out? I thought the Apache way was about  the 'doing' ...
>> he who does ... etc.  Please join the POI dev lists, and show us where
> I joined the dev and user list before I became VP. And I thought hey the vote 
> thread isn't finished
> yet. Hence my e-mail to poi / private list about the release. After that 
> offer you could have asked
> for help (which was offered) and state "we are on it" or something (about the 
> release itself not
> being checked).
>> we go wrong. We'd even instituted a policy to open the svn access to all
>> jakarta committers for only asking.
> If you read this thread Andy gave a very different explanation of this policy 
> to me (although I
> could have misread him).
>> Permit me to get personal to illustrate my point. When Henry noticed a
>> few issues with the release, he wrote back saying what they were. Some
>> we've pushed back, other's we've promised to fix, and in the meanwhile,
>> he's offered to fix some of them himself, an offer that's been very
>> gratefully accepted.
> I read the thread.
>> This thread, on the other hand, has degenerated into complete POI
>> bashing. Once again, I'd be happy to discuss the merits of this svn
>> proposal... its the subsequent bashing that completely baffles me.
> Just speaking for myself here : I just wanted to open up svn karma as a first 
> step to improve
> things. Maybe it should have been the last vote in the process. When there 
> was asked about the
> reasoning behind the vote, I just added the same thing I already said in the 
> mail about the release
> (about PMC members giving oversight) and trying to get to bounce the ball 
> back to the project to get
> some answers on eg the legal issue, which still remains partially unanswered.
> If POI bashing is what I did, my apologies, although after rereading the 
> thread, the negativity
> comes from both sides and I also seen a lot of messages with positive 
> attitude, so let's focus on
> that :)
>> Finally Martin, you say "If you have anything positive to
>> contribute..."; dont know if you mean me personally or the project as a
>> whole, I find that a wee bit offensive... sorry if I'm misunderstanding.
>> POI is in active development, used by thousands , 
> Never disputed that, I even said that in the message you are replying to. I 
> wanted to make clear
> with that statement (the positive part) that in that respect the project is 
> doing more than well
> (which I stated in other parts of the thread as well). I was kind of missing 
> that in the responses
> from, in this case, you.
> it doesn't need a
>> mandate from the PMC to be successful project, does it?
> It does need a mandate to be a successful project, which is the thing I am 
> trying to solve here,
> that most requests/vote announcements don't get a response is because the 
> vote and release is
> because we have lazy consensus. Some do get a response (eg not the needed 3 
> +1 votes from PMC
> members. So if you don't have the mandate to do a release from the PMC you 
> are going to have a hard
> time being successful.
>> I regard this mail as positive. Hope I am not wrong.
> You are not wrong, hope I didn't undo the positive part though (was at least 
> not my intention)
> Mvgr,
> Martin
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to