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