Serge, > "The Apache Way" is about trust and respect... Greg is someone who's > trusted > a lot of people, and I think has earned a huge amount of respect. This > isn't quaking in fear... it's a response of... my gosh, I'm only working > on > my one project and have no idea how much it's costing those people in > California to support my CVS account and emails and downloads... he asks > that we start considering this, and so we listen.
I couldn't agree more. It is about respect. Respect for disparate points of view. Something that seems to be lacking here. As my last email made clear, I did consider the issue. I find this assumption that any view which dissents from the current group-think shows no consideration to be disturbing. It certainly isn't the way to do good software development. Or good community building. I considered the issue not simply in response to Greg's email, but in response to Nicola's original post. I responded to that email with my belief that the tradeoff wasn't in the best interest of the project. Mirroring was not objected to on principle, but rather as being yet another thing that would push back the release. When it became clear that Noel wanted to pick this up and that he'd still get the marketing stuff done, I let it drop. If Noel manages to get his questions answered by the Apache infrastructure people, then mirroring will be part of the 2.1 release cycle. If he can't (which would indicate to me that it's not exactly a priority with them), then we'll consider the issue. In that case I'd push for a release w/o mirroring. What, exactly, is the problem here? > Also the open dialogue quickly ends with a -1 vote. Because of the Apache > voting rules, when someone votes -1, the conversation is just about over. > We can lobby the vetoer, but more than likely whatever brought that person > to veto will not likely change. And even if the person was open to > change, > the lobbying is draining to the community, the lobby'ers, and the vetoer. > Perhaps you don't appreciate how negative your voting is appearing to the > community. Perhaps it is. It is certainly not my intention to damage the community. But as I've said before, I only have my professional judgment to rely on. In my view it is equally (if not more so) damaging to make bad decisions and have to deal with the consequences. So I have (and continue to) express my opinion as to the best options at assorted decision points. On some occasions I stick to my guns, because I believe that it's a crucial issue. On other occasions I have gone along with opinions that differ substantially from my own because I believe that they won't be horribly detrimental. On still others I've tried to emphasize the issues that I find most relevant, and find a third path that addresses both those and the issues put forward by the other developers. That's how it works. As far as the open dialogue ending with a '-1' vote, I'll have to disagree. I certainly haven't felt restrained from debating with '-1' votes with which I disagree. And I wouldn't expect others to fail to lobby me when they disagree with my vote. My observation (on this and other lists) has been that the vote is rarely the end of the story. As far as this system being "draining", I don't see what your alternative is. It's a voting system, designed to allow disparate points of view to be debated. Sometimes it leads to gridlock. Most of the time it doesn't. I don't see any other way to do it. To me the choice seems to be unproductive lassitude or some degree of conflict. I'm all for minimizing the latter, provided we don't accept too much of the former. > Anyway, I'm done lobbying for you to change your veta of the pop3- > filestore > bug. You have the right to block any bug fixes and push the release out. > So be it. Ok. As I said in my recent email, your demeanor of "hurt victim" here baffles me. --Peter -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
