David, Thanks. Rest assured my intentions were never any malice nor did I ever believe what you had done had any malice intent. I will accept that I can be a bit matter of fact, and perhaps brash...I think its my upbringing - I can always use a little work on my emails and communication ;-).
But I think it comes down to email too. 2 people can read things differently...one has an intent and one has reception. I think my initial emails could be read 2 different ways depending on the frame of mind. Yet another tone being injected based on where we are at...if we are feeling defensive, etc. I can honestly say, I certainly wasn't trying to scream bloody murderer...just get to the bottom of what was going on. ;-) We can argue all day on how I may have said things in a bad manner, and I can say all day that was not what I was saying. I will be accountable for my rough edges, but I think the PPMC and you should be accountable for the lack of communication and long period of silence. This easily could have been thwarted early on, but it was left to fester. Bottom line is, we all need a bit of accountability here. This is how we are going to learn and be successful. I'll take my brashness lumps. ;-) I am really excited we got past this and look forward to OpenEJBs acceptance as a top level project! Jeff David Blevins wrote: > Jeff, > > I'm really glad you are happy and am also really glad you spoke up, this > is critical to a health community. > > I do have one lesson for the group to learn and I hope that you can help > me make it. It's that if you (anyone) suspect something is not right or > unclear, as a matter of respect and trust you can't fall into the > emotional trap of thinking that the it was intentional or malicous. If > your first post is to scream foul or bloody murder, you won't be doing > yourself or the group any good and will likely end up making more > problems than you intend to solve. As a matter of respect, patients and > trust the best first course of action is to simply ask for more > information in a very non-aggressive and non-accusatory fashion before > coming to any conclusions. > > If we can do this, there's no limit to what we can achieve together. > > Very best regards, > > David > > > On Apr 4, 2007, at 11:54 AM, jgenender wrote: > >> >> David, >> >> Ok...so I get it now. You were building a PMC all along. I want to >> apologize for my reaction...as I was unaware of this. It just looked >> to us >> like you instantly came up with a list. >> >> It really would have helped if we all knew people were getting voted >> on all >> along. I think knowing who/when from the past and moving forward, this >> could have been avoided. I was certainly confused and this definitely >> now >> makes some sense. >> >> Thanks for clarifying this...and I will change to a +1. Please keep >> us in >> the loop on these sorts of things ;-) >> >> Jeff >> >> >> David Blevins wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Kevan Miller wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 6:19 PM, David Blevins wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 3, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> It might make sense to have the community choose its PMC and for >>>>>> them to offer to help rather than having one person define the >>>>>> list. I'm not sure of the precedent in incubator for this. In >>>>>> the other thread Jacek had specifically requested two people be >>>>>> added and that request was missed somehow. That is what really >>>>>> caused me to move to a +0 but that was probably more my ignorance >>>>>> in how incubator does these things. >>>>> >>>>> The PPMC starts with members of the Incubator PMC (in our case our >>>>> Mentors Jason, Brett, and Henri). Then people were added over time. >>>> >>>> If I understand David correctly, he saying that the current PPMC >>>> members are the proposed OpenEJB PMC members. It may not be an >>>> official incubator "policy", however, this seems like a reasonable >>>> way of seeding the PMC for an incubating project. >>> >>> Corrrect. And the key word is "inital" PMC Members. >>> >>>> The root of the problem being raised in the current discussion, >>>> seems to be that the PPMC membership was not well-advertised to the >>>> community. IIUC the PPMC started with the initial mentors and that >>>> members were added over time. However, I cannot find any >>>> notifications to this list that indicate that such changes were >>>> being made. >>> >>> I concur that this seems to be the real mistake. There also was >>> (maybe even still) some confusion about the list of names in the >>> proposal. It's the PMC list not the committer list, all committers >>> will still be committers at graduation. (restating that as I got an >>> email today asking why they were no longer on the project, so this >>> confusion still seems to be out there). >>> >>>> I'd suggest that this situation be remedied by discussing the >>>> current PPMC membership -- let the community know when each member >>>> was added to the PPMC. This information can then be used in >>>> discussing the proposed PMC membership... >>> >>> That's a good discussion to have, going to answer that on Jeff's thread. >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> --View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Request-Graduation-to-a-TLP-tf3509720s2756.html#a9843256 >> >> Sent from the OpenEJB Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>
