I have no further comment on this. If the PMC wishes to continue it, that is their prerogative.
Personally, I find it discouraging when the response too all of my contributions (on a blanket basis, without specific technical objections) is that I am a sucky coder who only produces crap incapable of integration into Habari. I really do love the Habari project and most of the community. But I don't see much sense in working on a project which clearly doesn't want me. I will certainly continue to use Habari, since it is a superior project. I may continue to have periodic contributions, especially on - extras, but do not expect active involvement. Some (or many) of you will probably rejoice. On Feb 20, 2009, at 8:53 AM, Ali B. wrote: > I know I should be on track and actually discuss what Rich suggested > and I shortly will. > I need to respond to some rather poisonous thoughts here. > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Arthus Erea <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2009, at 8:35 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > >> 1) The pool of committers is now too large to be considered merely me >> and my pals. > > I was referring to Owen. > > Regardless, I think that's the point: Owen seems to be worried he > will lose his strong control over the project, as the group of > committers grows. Thus, he attempts to invalidate certain people > from committing. > > Your statement lacks any evidence. When did an idea/implementations, > other than the obvious poorly implemented ones, were ever "shot > down" by Owen of any other committer for that matter? I cannot see > any take-over efforts whatsoever. Pleas try to be subjective. >> 2) The committers have a range of skills, so that some of them are >> qualified to review code commits, and others are qualified to review >> design commits, and others are qualified to review documentation >> commits. This is simple division of labor, not excluding certain >> people from being reviewer > > > Of course, but who decides this? > > In my opinion, that should be at the discretion of the committer. If > they think of themselves as competent enough to review a patch, why > should others be second guessing them? > > Remember that almost everyone thinks he's competent even though > everyone says that they are not. I disagree, however, on > categorizing PMC members. If you think this desginer/novice will not > use his commit access wisely or at all, then this needs to be > reviewed. There should be a clear statement that PMC members should > not necessary be committers. There's nothing wrong, for me, in the > idea of PMC member submitting a patch. And for the record, if we are > going to revoke commit access for PMC memeber, I'd revoke mine the > first. Just in case anyone thinks I am being hypocritical here. > > > And clearly that's how it is: people only review patches which they > are comfortable with. > > From what I hear, Owen seems to think he should be responsible for > arbitrarily deciding some committers are not competent enough to > review patches. This reeks of attempting to subvert the project and > weaken other PMC members. > > Again, personal attacks will get you nowhere. And as you notice, > even statements that would actually make sense will be ignored > because of your tendency for a personal attacks. You just wasted > your time writing that email. > Owen is just saying that people who are qualified to review a patch > (not just to successfully commit it) should commit it. And while I > agree with that, I believe that people who are not qualified to > commit must not have commit access in the first place. Anti- > Metrocity or not, I am not the best person to actually argue that. > > Awaiting for your kind attack, I remain > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
