Excellent note, Jeff.
I think you're spot on and have apologize for my part of the
silence. There was no mal intent there and in retrospect it was a
really unfortunate mistake to have made. For my part of that I can
say that I saw us doing so well keeping the weight of the community
on the dev list and did see the need/benefit of drawing attention and
focus onto the PMC. Clearly we went too far in the other direction.
Lesson learned.
As for silence on the thread itself, I have to apologize if the right
information and responses were not coming fast enough in the thread.
It's no secret I have a lot of weight on the project, I am perhaps
overly aware of it. It's very hard to balance having a voice of my
own and not dominating the conversation in the process. I think
discussions like these though, do a great deal in helping/keeping the
project in balance.
We all have something to improve, we're all learning and I agree,
this is how we will make our project even better.
-David
On Apr 4, 2007, at 2:32 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
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.
