Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Niclas Hedhman wrote: The problem that Nicola perhaps doesn't realize is that, for Apache to be long-term viable, it constantly needs to revive and evolve itself. Otherwise it will become a speck in history, and not a dominant force of horizontal open-source projects. And as you, Ceki, correctly point out, suche evolution is likely to come from a minority and possibly not from the top-tier. I very much agree with that. Unfortunately, what Avalon proposes now is a friction-based style of community development which impedence creates mismatch with the consensus-based style of community developement that is welcome and incubated in all other projects. This impedence mismatch requires continue energy from the top to be controlled. Now the board is left to determine if we want to promote this new style to top level or not and, as a director of the foundation, I have *NOT* seen anything that indicates that this approach works better, or even equivalently well, with the style that we have today in place. If you want to change my mind, that's how you start: tell me what is the benefit for the ASF in promoting this style of community building, despite its long-term history of social energy waste, frustration and contract instability. -- Stefano. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Tuesday 28 September 2004 09:30, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote: If you want to change my mind, that's how you start: tell me what is the benefit for the ASF in promoting this style of community building, despite its long-term history of social energy waste, frustration and contract instability. In all due respect, IMHO this thread was never meant to be about community style building. Initially I brought up an issue of knowing the playing field to a more explicit extent, and secondary about level of transparency. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Hi, (wow, this really is the thread that just wouldn't die!) On 26 Sep 2004, at 23:48, Stephen McConnell wrote: What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. Sure, fine, I think most people get that. It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list simply as a heads-up to each and every committer here that something happened recently that simply was not right. No problem with Niclas bringing up the question. His methodology, however, was inappropriate. you seem to agree that acceptable behaviour is defined by agreements. very well, let me spell it out: by participating in the apache projects, you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the rules behaviour the organisation considers acceptable. in case it wasn't clear, let me make it so now: one of those is if someone entrusts information to you in confidence, you DO NOT expose it unless legally required or with the permission of the source. Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of serious reservation concerning his role and potential contribution? You're missing the point and blowing things out of proportion. The point here, in case you missed it, is that Niclas posted private mail on a public list. This is extremely bad manners, and breaches the rules behaviour the organisation considers acceptable - organisation here not necessarily being ASF, but the general internet public-at-large. For the record - the relevant elements of the email header of the notification I received and from which I initiated a dialog with Niclas are included here: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:53:12 -0700 From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon Yup, so completely private to a bunch of individuals and the Avalon PMC. So, a general discussion of how do we cope with people that don't play by the rules? would be appropriate on community@, but using a private email to kickstart such a debate is NOT appropriate. Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. Yup, see you could do with rewording the challenge a little ;-) How about a more friendly how do we deal with generic situation X rather than why is Fred annoyed with Barney? If you were to start the thread again with a more polite and netiquette-friendly[1] question, I'm sure we'd get out of this flame-war we're mired in and into some sensible conversation. You'd probably stop boring the pants off most of the community, too :-) Just my 2p. [1] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html and more specifically http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html point (11) Andrew. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Monday 27 September 2004 06:02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: you really don't seem to understand. *stephen* wasn't on the distribution list, and yet you checked with him. I have refrained from attacking people in this list, but there is a limit on how much lies I will tolerate. Mr Coar, please check your facts before implying yet more untrue statements in this and other matters. It doesn't suit you to be caught in FUD spreading and carrying untruth to your fellow developers here at the ASF. IMHO, you have broken not only unspoken principals of the ASF (which you are accusing me of), but what is normally called human decency and one of the foundations of most societies; Thou Shall NOT LIE. I don't know your motives behind this action, and hope it is only a matter of over-excited to prove me wrong and/or ignorance to check up your statements. This is so sad. IMHO, an apology is in order, not to me, but to those who have placed their trust and confidence in you to a person of integrity and respectability to represent them in this organization. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Niclas Hedhman wrote: Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: *stephen* wasn't on the distribution list, and yet you checked with him. Actually, if we're talking about Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED], Stephen was on the distribution list. I have refrained from attacking people in this list, but there is a limit on how much lies I will tolerate. Just correct him if he made a mistake. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Monday 27 September 2004 12:00, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Just correct him if he made a mistake. So when he carries untruth that would have been very easy for him to check, that validates just correct him, and when I make the disclosure of what I believe to be ASF-wide public information, the flamefest and attacks are appropriate ?? Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- [resending, with modifications, due to screwed up cc list the first time] Stephen McConnell wrote: I find this discussion and the usage of terms such as severe lack of respect to be out of place and largely disproportionate with the real topic, substance and events. all right. i disagree, however, at least with the 'out of place' aspect. I received an email from the Chairman (with a specific note that that the message was issue by the Chairman in that capacity). indeed, on rechecking i see that i was working from a false premise. a couple of the addressees were hidden behind my mailer's twisty; yours was one of them. i was mistaken about you having been omitted from the original message, and i withdraw those remarks and humbly apologise for the statements and insinuations i made. Following receipt of the official notification from the Board concerning the Metro Project submission - I contacted Niclas as part of our normal process of coordination. I expressed some opinions and concerns to Niclas on the subject of the notification - including the subject of the reservations and the strongly implied implications or those reservations. A particular concern that I raised was the absence of any supporting justification or explanation for the reservation that was for all intensive purposes an explicit and directed exclusion of my participation in the oversight of a project to which I am committed, engaged and actively contributing. i don't intend to get into the 'bring me a rock' scenario concerning who said what when to justify whichever. all the information is available in the archives. i imagine either sam or brian will post relevant pointers. if they don't, perhaps i will. notwithstanding, there *are* documented incidents leading to the reservation. What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list simply as a heads-up to each and every committer here that something happened recently that simply was not right. that opinion may or may not reflect actual fact. let us assume for the moment that it does. 'was not right' is also a matter of opinion. what is not a matter of opinion, but is rather a matter of fact, is that niclas quoted a private message in a public forum without consulting the author. attempting to raise awareness by defining a hypothetical case, or even an actual case with the specifics removed, would have been much more acceptable, although there is a slippery slope. quoting a private message without permission isn't acceptable at all. Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of serious reservation concerning his role and potential contribution? possibly, in terms of roles involving representation or social responsibility. this sequence *should* have no effect on opinions concerning his technical ability and contributions. people are people, however. i am dismayed that the private message was exposed the way it was. i am much more concerned that the individual involved apparently doesn't see the action as incorrect. if i felt comfortable that it *did* understand why it was inappropriate, i personally would be glad to regard the incident as a one-time mistake arising from misunderstanding or cultural differences, and most of my concern would evaporate. i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our organization that are patently untrue. Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. to what, specifically? to my admitted-above patently-untrue assertion that you weren't on the initial distribution? done. something else? - -- #kenP-|} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQVgWB5rNPMCpn3XdAQG63gP/SCHtepJtn6LtUt7P1Nm82sHe6hO3VnLp HffQNqE4vO9/j71YY4euIMzz3jGGS4F/hubzP/2iv4nsSt8h4ky0yKCO4kN2IKAo p478HYhRAnYq3x1MpHGJrBsl6CvptDKpSNIAp59TwWQM3CXq8Eqz22zFnvErQILB T9pWbDnQSt4= =V5tI -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 September 2004 15:31 To: community@apache.org Cc: 'Apache Board' Subject: Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- [resending, with modifications, due to screwed up cc list the first time] Stephen McConnell wrote: I find this discussion and the usage of terms such as severe lack of respect to be out of place and largely disproportionate with the real topic, substance and events. all right. i disagree, however, at least with the 'out of place' aspect. I received an email from the Chairman (with a specific note that that the message was issue by the Chairman in that capacity). indeed, on rechecking i see that i was working from a false premise. a couple of the addressees were hidden behind my mailer's twisty; yours was one of them. i was mistaken about you having been omitted from the original message, and i withdraw those remarks and humbly apologise for the statements and insinuations i made. Following receipt of the official notification from the Board concerning the Metro Project submission - I contacted Niclas as part of our normal process of coordination. I expressed some opinions and concerns to Niclas on the subject of the notification - including the subject of the reservations and the strongly implied implications or those reservations. A particular concern that I raised was the absence of any supporting justification or explanation for the reservation that was for all intensive purposes an explicit and directed exclusion of my participation in the oversight of a project to which I am committed, engaged and actively contributing. i don't intend to get into the 'bring me a rock' scenario concerning who said what when to justify whichever. all the information is available in the archives. i imagine either sam or brian will post relevant pointers. if they don't, perhaps i will. notwithstanding, there *are* documented incidents leading to the reservation. Thanks - this addresses the center of my concern and I would like you know that I appreciate any actions from yourself, sam, or brian on this subject. What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list simply as a heads-up to each and every committer here that something happened recently that simply was not right. that opinion may or may not reflect actual fact. let us assume for the moment that it does. 'was not right' is also a matter of opinion. what is not a matter of opinion, but is rather a matter of fact, is that niclas quoted a private message in a public forum without consulting the author. attempting to raise awareness by defining a hypothetical case, or even an actual case with the specifics removed, would have been much more acceptable, although there is a slippery slope. quoting a private message without permission isn't acceptable at all. Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of serious reservation concerning his role and potential contribution? possibly, in terms of roles involving representation or social responsibility. this sequence *should* have no effect on opinions concerning his technical ability and contributions. people are people, however. i am dismayed that the private message was exposed the way it was. i am much more concerned that the individual involved apparently doesn't see the action as incorrect. if i felt comfortable that it *did* understand why it was inappropriate, i personally would be glad to regard the incident as a one-time mistake arising from misunderstanding or cultural differences, and most of my concern would evaporate. i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our organization that are patently untrue. Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. to what, specifically? to my admitted-above patently-untrue assertion that you weren't on the initial distribution? Yes. done. Great. something else? Yep - just wanted to say thank you and that you reply was very much appreciated in terms of both substance and style. Stephen. - -- #ken P-|} - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Monday 27 September 2004 21:30, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: i am dismayed that the private message was exposed the way it was. i am much more concerned that the individual involved apparently doesn't see the action as incorrect. if i felt comfortable that it *did* understand why it was inappropriate, i personally would be glad to regard the incident as a one-time mistake arising from misunderstanding or cultural differences, and most of my concern would evaporate. You and the rest of the community have my sincere apology for revealing content that I was unaware of had a confidential nature, as I knew the readership was already fairly large and that there existed no indication in the message about the confidentiality in the matter. I still maintain my _opinion_ that more transparency would be appreciated. I am equally dismayed as Ken is, that a flamefest took place, where other issues were brought in to the picture. Whether I fuelled those flames or not, I am not sure. I really tried not to, and refrained from answering many accusations based on that it would not lead anywhere, and only make the situation worse. Those are IMHO still just accusations. Cheers Niclas P.S. I prefer not to be called it :o) -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
At 04:08 PM 9/24/2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: How many in Apache think you are right? Is that a fair question? Most people at Apache do not really care about Avalon nor know its history. How can the majority expected to have an opinion if they don't know anything about the subject matter? More generally, most majority opinions start in the minority. If every minority opinion were to be disqualified because of its initial feeble representation, then there would be little point in having open debates. Anyway, my point is that shooting down a minority opinion based only on numbers will not serve the interests of the majority on the long run. -- Ceki Gülcü - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Sunday 26 September 2004 23:35, Ceki Glc wrote: At 04:08 PM 9/24/2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: How many in Apache think you are right? Is that a fair question? In all due respect, my initial question about demotions quickly turned into a clogmire of intertwined subjects, reaching from breach of confidentiality to netiquette to understanding the Apache Way to wasting people's time and other more or less non-relevant assertions. It never really had anything to do with Avalon, except that my questions were triggered by events there. The problem that Nicola perhaps doesn't realize is that, for Apache to be long-term viable, it constantly needs to revive and evolve itself. Otherwise it will become a speck in history, and not a dominant force of horizontal open-source projects. And as you, Ceki, correctly point out, suche evolution is likely to come from a minority and possibly not from the top-tier. Anyway, my point is that shooting down a minority opinion based only on numbers will not serve the interests of the majority on the long run. I think it is called the Apache Way, i.e. I haven't earned the respect of others to have a different opinion about the ASF internals, nor does my view that what 100 people (members) is informed of, can be shared with the remaining set of committers that makes out this community. Apperently my Scandinavian background of complete transparency is not compatible with the more secretive athmosphere around here. Lesson learnt. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Sun, 2004-09-26 at 17:57, Niclas Hedhman wrote: [...] I think it is called the Apache Way, i.e. I haven't earned the respect of others to have a different opinion about the ASF internals, nor does my view that what 100 people (members) is informed of, can be shared with the Commenting a board decision with sniping comments like [...] Unfortunately, we have been told by the overlords of ASF that users doesn't matter much. That can also be seen on many projects where the users@ mailing [...] on the avalon mailing lists won't help your case much. remaining set of committers that makes out this community. Apperently my Scandinavian background of complete transparency is not compatible with the more secretive athmosphere around here. And implying that you, because of your scandinavian background of complete transparency are not compatible with the ASF does IMHO not, either. The ASF consists of individuals from all over the world. Yes, there are opinion clashes in the projects, on the TLP PMCs but generally spoken, I haven't met a more forgiving bunch of different dedvelopers than the ASF. Have you ever been subscribed to linux-kernel? :-) You seem to want to do your thing inside the ASF. This does not seem to work as the current state of the Avalon community implies, because there are different opinions or even politics. If you insist on forking Avalon (with the Metro TLP), why not fork off-ASF? e.g. to codehaus.org? Why not incubate Metro before calling for a TLP? Is it the reduced visibility? Regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re- fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied - is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it deserves to be on this list of the top five problems. --Michelle Levesque, Fundamental Issues with Open Source Software Development - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
. Original Message ... On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 23:57:13 +0800 Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 26 September 2004 23:35, Ceki Gülcü wrote: At 04:08 PM 9/24/2004, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: How many in Apache think you are right? Is that a fair question? No. Not really. In all due respect, my initial question about demotions quickly turned into a clogmire of intertwined subjects, reaching from breach of confidentiality to netiquette to understanding the Apache Way to wasting people's time and other more or less non-relevant assertions. It never really had anything to do with Avalon, except that my questions were triggered by events there. 1. You *did* violate the confidentiality of the original message. If you really wanted to have a constructive discussion about demotion, you could have easily done that without violating that trust. So, first off there is nothing wrong with the discussion topic, but many of us find the manner by which you began this thread to by offensive. 2. As for demotion, you've been given many direct answers which refer to point such as exiting bylaws and general principles of community dynamics. I have not seen you respond with any detailed criticism but only with handwaving. So, what concerns do you still have? What do you feel needs changed and what suggestions do you have? Let's quit yelling and actually discuss. I think it is called the Apache Way, i.e. I haven't earned the respect of others to have a different opinion about the ASF internals, nor does my view that what 100 people (members) is informed of, can be shared with the remaining set of committers that makes out this community. Apperently my Scandinavian background of complete transparency is not compatible with the more secretive athmosphere around here. Lesson learnt. Okay, so you feel the ASF is not open enough in its communications. Is this why you broadcasted the private information communicated to you community list, or did you really want to start a constructive discussion about demotion? In other words, there appear to be two concerns you have and I'm trying to separate them to learne your true intent. You are certainly not the only one who has had concerns about transparency. It is a difficult aspect to balance but I feel to believe all communication should be public is naive. In general, I've found that if someone brings up the point of open communication in a private ASF forum that it is well taken and steps are made to be as transparent as possible. Do you feel the matters the board communicated with you should really have been publicly broadcast from the beginning? ___ jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Monday 27 September 2004 00:35, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: for a doctor to tell your friends and neighbours that you have cancer? Hippocratic Oath (not sure of spelling), similar to a contract. for an employee to tell its employer that it really hates its job, and intends to resign at the earliest opportunity in order to take a job with a competitor? Well, that is the choice of the employee, and I doubt that it will raise much eye browes if he/she does. or for an employer to tell an employee that it'll be fired for cause in three weeks? I am not entirely sure, but I think this falls under Labor law, and not only acceptable but required from the employer. Even considerations of the possibility of laying off people must be communicated to the Labor Union upon occurrance. You forgot National Security, which is basically kept within the Armed Forces and Special Police Force, plus reinforced by signed contracts. Business communications are typically governed by mutual NDAs. I am sure there are more cases, where communication secrecy is backed by contract? So, I still maintain that a cultural difference lay behind the difference of opinion, whether the mail to the Metro group, to the Avalon PMC and accessible by all ASF members were of confidential nature or not. And I sure did check with Stephen McConnell what his take was on quoting his name straight up, and he had no objections whatsoever. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- handwave, handwave. you claimed 'total transparency;' i simply illustrated why i suspected it was no such thing. you have confirmed that. Niclas Hedhman wrote: So, I still maintain that a cultural difference lay behind the difference of opinion, whether the mail to the Metro group, to the Avalon PMC and accessible by all ASF members were of confidential nature or not. perhaps. i personally don't buy it. And I sure did check with Stephen McConnell what his take was on quoting his name straight up, and he had no objections whatsoever. you really don't seem to understand. *stephen* wasn't on the distribution list, and yet you checked with him. had he been informed before you did so? and you also failed to bother to even inform, much less get permission from, the person you quoted. or the private distribution to which the message was sent. you just took it on yourself to broadcast it to the world, only bothering to check with someone who was deliberately and explicitly *omitted* from the distribution for reasons sufficient to the sender. you seem to agree that acceptable behaviour is defined by agreements. very well, let me spell it out: by participating in the apache projects, you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the rules behaviour the organisation considers acceptable. in case it wasn't clear, let me make it so now: one of those is if someone entrusts information to you in confidence, you DO NOT expose it unless legally required or with the permission of the source. i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our organisation that are patently untrue. - -- #kenP-(} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQVc8XJrNPMCpn3XdAQGsdwP/cY3YFOJhSxsf58XtVtl89Iw0v9POcv9k Bd31H+3m9Zs2BYiO1QDmaPBUAXXS2ODxOZ5d/q2u2VsG3b/W2yXhemL33mv9TGe7 UWlAY5kHR4Cb4a0VidHYdQbHYd1CURqbnwcsx4DdBwsEciVu5B8Y7n1mgnTF80Nr hcXSZm+Oye8= =gnF3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Ken: -Original Message- From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 27 September 2004 00:02 you really don't seem to understand. *stephen* wasn't on the distribution list, and yet you checked with him. had he been informed before you did so? and you also failed to bother to even inform, much less get permission from, the person you quoted. or the private distribution to which the message was sent. you just took it on yourself to broadcast it to the world, only bothering to check with someone who was deliberately and explicitly *omitted* from the distribution for reasons sufficient to the sender. I find this discussion and the usage of terms such as severe lack of respect to be out of place and largely disproportionate with the real topic, substance and events. I received an email from the Chairman (with a specific note that that the message was issue by the Chairman in that capacity). The content of the message presented a summary of the meeting of the BOD concerning a proposal that was submitted. The Chairman presented a number of points concerning the discussion by the board - all were pertinent to the subject of a proposal revision and constructive dialog with members of the board has been imitated as a result. However - one item concerned the expression of serious reservations as to my participation as a member of any PMC within Apache. Some of you will not know that the members of the proposed Metro Project nominated Niclas as their choice for chair. My own reasons for supporting Niclas in this capacity is my prior experience in working with him in at least three different ASF projects, his experience and competence on the subject of the project, but first and foremost - his genuine integrity as an individual. Following receipt of the official notification from the Board concerning the Metro Project submission - I contacted Niclas as part of our normal process of coordination. I expressed some opinions and concerns to Niclas on the subject of the notification - including the subject of the reservations and the strongly implied implications or those reservations. A particular concern that I raised was the absence of any supporting justification or explanation for the reservation that was for all intensive purposes an explicit and directed exclusion of my participation in the oversight of a project to which I am committed, engaged and actively contributing. Neither Niclas, I, or others I spoke with immediately following the announcement were able to provide a rationale for this position - however, this is not the subject of concern. Instead - the subject of concern to every committer in Apache is the implications of the recommendation on the open process. Niclas (as our team representative) requested my permission to disclose the information to community@apache.org to which I agreed without reservation or hesitation. In contradiction to some assertions in this thread - my reputation is not the question here (that's already well established). What is in question is the openness of the Apache Software Foundation and that question is of interest to every committer at Apache. It is my opinion the Niclas posted his initial comments to the list simply as a heads-up to each and every committer here that something happened recently that simply was not right. But beyond this - another darker animal is emerging ... you seem to agree that acceptable behaviour is defined by agreements. very well, let me spell it out: by participating in the apache projects, you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the rules behaviour the organisation considers acceptable. in case it wasn't clear, let me make it so now: one of those is if someone entrusts information to you in confidence, you DO NOT expose it unless legally required or with the permission of the source. Will the actions taken by Niclas in defending the principals of openness and community within the ASF simply lead to another statement of serious reservation concerning his role and potential contribution? For the record - the relevant elements of the email header of the notification I received and from which I initiated a dialog with Niclas are included here: Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:53:12 -0700 From: Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon i do not intend to 'fuel the flames,' but neither do i intend to let anyone get away unchallenged with assertions or implications about our organization that are patently untrue. Please consider this message as my direct and immediate challenge. Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Noel: Community dynamics, evolution, collective management, and how things unfold. Well, it's probably good stuff to document. If on the other-hand you want to paint me as the Dr. Claw, well, your going to have to send me a complete package - the car, the costume, and don't forget the cat! Cheers, Steve. -Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 September 2004 21:58 To: community@apache.org Subject: RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon Stephen McConnell wrote: Sure - we talked openly about developer and user attrition. Was that bad? Was it better to stay fragment and unable to really and properly work with other projects as a single community? Yes - attrition comes at a price. Any regrets - sure. Would I do it again given the same circumstances? Probably - yes. Would the outcome be the same? No. You pick up experience along the way and you figure out those things you'd handle differently the next time. To reiterate ... - attrition of users and developers is an acceptable solution to project evolution. - you would probably do the same things again. - you would hope for a different outcome. Is that correct? What do you feel would be different about the outcome? What would you have wanted to be different, and how do you feel it would come from doing the same things? Why would it be different? In any event, I'm logging for for a day or so. Will be curious to read follow ups. --- Noel - 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]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23 September 2004 19:10 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: community@apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon On Thursday 23 September 2004 15:53, Greg Stein wrote: We have significant reservations around including Stephen McConnell on any PMC at the ASF. For the forseeable future, I do not see the Board allowing Stephen to participate at a PMC level. Before I got married - my wife's father had significant reservations around including Stephen McConnell in the family album. That was 20 years ago and I'm proud to say we're happily married, and no reservations. However, almost any morning you can count on the fact that I have significant reservations as to my ability to find my coffee cup. I don't expect my reservations related to cup-hunting to disappear within the foreseeable future, but I do think there is an important semantic difference between the expression of a reservation and the ability to find the cup. It's now 08:44 am - the hunt is on! Cheers, Stephen. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Niclas Hedhman wrote: ... in effect anyone could potentially be at the whim of high ranking officers (Board) and to a lesser degree PMCs(?) Apache is a meritocracy, not a kolkhoz[1]. People are invited to join the PMC only if other PMC members see their merits and want them to come in, not because there is some rule that sums up the commits done or the length of the emails written. PMC members are there because they earned merit from their peers (not because of rules), and they have all the right to decide for the project. The same applies to the board, as it's an elected selection of members, that are also there only on invitation. If you don't understand this, you don't understand Apache. [1] http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9045938query=kolkhozct= -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
On Friday 24 September 2004 15:08, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: People are invited to join the PMC only if other PMC members see their merits and want them to come in, not because there is some rule that sums up the commits done or the length of the emails written. PMC members are there because they earned merit from their peers (not because of rules), and they have all the right to decide for the project. The same applies to the board, as it's an elected selection of members, that are also there only on invitation. That is all well and dandy. But it only reflects the promotion aspect, not the demotion aspect. Example, * if I am voted in as a committer into a project, and then -1 every vote for new committers. Does that quantify as being expelled from the community? If so, roughly how many, if not why not? If you don't understand this, you don't understand Apache. That itself sounds more like communism under Stalin than an open society willing to discuss issues. What I don't understand is why it is such a touchy subject. Why am I not allowed to raise the issue, and get mails privately saying that I am escalating the issue, when asking for clarifications on what constitutes demotions, as is the case with Stephen McConnell. If I offend someone personally, am I then at risk of being expelled or not? Can I flauntless hunt down and pester individuals who's ranking is lower than mine, without worrying about retributions? How much flame-fest can I partake in before the line is cut? How much hindrance can I extert on a project, before I am kicked out? There are papers written about the positive sides of The Apache Way, but very little on it's ugly side. If the ASF is going to survive in the long-term it needs to address these issues. Perfect harmony is an utopia that can only exist in small groups (whether that be ASF or a kolkhoz) and currently there are no guidelines of what constitutes acceptable behaviour for committers, members, officers and directors. Cheers Niclas -- +--//---+ / http://www.bali.ac/ / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +--//---+ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] As a non-member of the Avalon community, I've noticed that a rift opened up there from far, far away. But as my primary project in the Jakarta Community (Turbine) considers moving closer to Avalon, I'd still be very interested to get the view from both sides. Could some of the Avalon folks maybe state in a few (!) sentences, what is the issue over Avalon / Merlin and the rejected Metro proposal? What we have is a situation where *all* of the active committers within Avalon are committed to one platform, a single product strategy, a shared belief that we are onto some really good things, and a common interest in the development of these ideas, concepts, and products here at Apache. Way back the community voted on this subject and overwhelmingly endorsed a single product strategy, bringing to a definitive end a history of fragmented development communities within Avalon. The community has completely changed as a result, new faces everywhere, the content in Avalon that makes up the Merlin platform together with related build systems, development tools, supporting systems, etc. now represents around than 90% of the current codebase. Based on the experience of building, evolving and delivering successive versions of Merlin, we are now well into a stage where historic notions such as 'framework' are loosing relevance. In its place is a meta-model, slowly but surely taking over the role of container component contract compliance. In the version of Merlin used in Fulcrum we can do things like switch in new runtime systems, plugin new logging solutions, enable dynamic component reloading. But where we heading is the constant running, dynamically up-gradable component management platform. This requires not only pluging in of sub-systems, but also plugin support for the semantic model. At this point - there is no fixed framework. And at this point the role of Merlin in Avalon no longer makes a lot sense. In effect, where we are going is beyond Avalon. However, freedom to pursue these challenges is proving a challenge in and of itself. Members of the Board have opened up lines of communication and it's already clear that there is interest in enabling this, but also concerns from board members over existing users, and naturally - the reverent immutable framework. But all of this IMO is tainted with a historical bias - damage limitation seems to capture more attention then innovation. There is a job ahead of us in turning this perception around. That's going to take patience and perseverance - but in the mean time, we are forging ahead on all fronts. Cheers, Steve. Regards Henning (I do understand that moving out of the ASF is a step that most projects do only very, very reluctantly; not for technical reasons but because a non-ASF project does not get the same (media and public) exposure as an ASF project. (See also: Velocity vs. Freemarker). -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development -- hero for hire Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Development Fighting for one's political stand is an honorable action, but re- fusing to acknowledge that there might be weaknesses in one's position - in order to identify them so that they can be remedied - is a large enough problem with the Open Source movement that it deserves to be on this list of the top five problems. --Michelle Levesque, Fundamental Issues with Open Source Software Development - 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]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... Now, since I aired this on community@, I am getting the feeling that this is a touchy subject and should not be discussed in open. That worries me more. What is there to hide? Why can't I ask for a clarification for everyone in the community at large to see? Being 'kicked out' of your own work is a big thing that I think most active committers would like to know more about. No? You cannot be 'kicked out' of your own work in the sense that (1) you still own the copyright to the code you've committed and (2) the ASL means you can still go and do just about anything you want with not only your code, but everyone else's too. So it is very incorrect to say you get kicked out of your own work. A community can censure an individual due to misconduct. As I stated to you before, the conditions and policies surrounding such an action are usually laid out in the bylaws of the project. If not, then the PMC must come to an agreement on the subject. However, in this case it never even got that far. Stephen McConnell resigned from the Avalon project. Action very well may have been taken against him by the PMC (there was certainly talk about it) but Stephen stepped out before it escalated to that point. These policies and rules are in place for when the community breaks down, something that shouldn't happen in a healthy ASF project. The rules about vetos and freezing committer access are in place so that commit wars and individual arguements can be contained to limit the damage to the community as a whole. There is nothing sinister about them, nor is there any secret agenda by PMCs or the Board. -Original Message- From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] But as my primary project in the Jakarta Community (Turbine) considers moving closer to Avalon, I'd still be very interested to get the view from both sides. Could some of the Avalon folks maybe state in a few sentences, what is the issue over Avalon / Merlin and the rejected Metro proposal? I disagree with the version of events are presented by Stephen and Niclas, though their points are not completely unfounded. Here is my digest version: 1. Avalon did not have a clear singular project vision on which all the developers agreed on, i.e.- should we develop containers? one or many? frameworks? component library? all of the above? 2. Needless to say, arguements about what Avalon should be or not be have plagued the project for several years. Some people left in disgust, some were removed, some continued to battle it out for supremacy. 3. Just because someone was left standing in the end only shows he was more stubborn than the rest, not necessarily that his vision was best for Avalon and its users or what they wanted. Now, I personally feel that Avalon has had in its ranks some of the best programmers your ever going to find. And almost every idea presented or worked on under the Avalon banner had excellent merit. But when they all compete for the title and future of the project, no one wins. Some of us have tried very hard to bridge the gap between the various ideologies and developer teams to no avail. Solutions are not easy to find when there is still resentment in the air and when misconduct and stubborness continues. Consequently attempts to resolve the issues have stalled a number of times. That's about as nice as I can put it. I've made a few other comments on my blog [1] if anyone is actually that interested in learning more. jaaron [1] http://www.jadetower.org/muses/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Since you don't seem sensible to common sense [snip] Just don't expect to change people, as it will never happen, especially if you are attacking them. Consider taking your own advice. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
Sam Ruby wrote: Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote: Since you don't seem sensible to common sense [snip] Just don't expect to change people, as it will never happen, especially if you are attacking them. Consider taking your own advice. Thanks, will do. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You make it sound as if the Board was off on a lark, when the fact is that the situation has all too often discussed in many circles, and the Board has been fairly closely monitoring the project for more than two years. Nor should it have come as a surprise to the person whose identity should have been protected, since he has been made aware of concerns often and privately. I much prefer that such discussions are open, clear, and unambiguous. I can assure you that my reputation is not at stake here. What is at stake is a new community with great ambitions, passion, and a determination to make it happen, here, at Apache, where our history is. snip/ The new work is excellent, and there is a small community of developers who are devoted to it, but in terms of cost to the community, don't disregard the facts. Following their muse, they co-opted the project; determined that the one important piece of the consensus was a unified platform, without regard for the rest of the consensus; and actively and openly spoke of both developer AND USER attrition as a means for as a means for achieving the goal. It got to the point where the bulk of committers walked out, although some eventually came back to form the core of the Excalibur project. So when I see a comment that all of the active committers are committed to one platform, I almost have to laugh. So laugh and have fun. Sure - we talked openly about developer and user attrition. Was that bad? Was it better to stay fragment and unable to really and properly work with other projects as a single community? Yes - attrition comes at a price. Any regrets - sure. Would I do it again given the same circumstances? Probably - yes. Would the outcome be the same? No. You pick up experience along the way and you figure out those things you'd handle differently the next time. Cheers, Steve. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Board Commentary: Metro and Avalon
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- everyone knows i cannot keep my mouth shut to save my life. Niclas Hedhman wrote: If you don't understand this, you don't understand Apache. That itself sounds more like communism under Stalin than an open society willing to discuss issues. and *that* sounds like a simple handwave. *do* you understand the thing to which nicola ken referred? What I don't understand is why it is such a touchy subject. Why am I not allowed to raise the issue, and get mails privately saying that I am escalating the issue, when asking for clarifications on what constitutes demotions, as is the case with Stephen McConnell. because you egregiously violated principles of common courtesy, and then repeatedly exhibited either unwillingness or stark inability to understand why your actions were inappropriate. you did not use theoretical constructs, but actual ones/ If I offend someone personally, am I then at risk of being expelled or not? Can I flauntless hunt down and pester individuals who's ranking is lower than mine, without worrying about retributions? How much flame-fest can I partake in before the line is cut? How much hindrance can I extert on a project, before I am kicked out? if someone interferes with successful community function, that person will probably be given repeated chances to correct the behaviour. if it persists, expulsion for the good of the community is possible. currently there are no guidelines of what constitutes acceptable behaviour for committers, members, officers and directors. there certainly are guidelines for acceptable online behaviour. they're collectively called 'netiquette.' you violated them. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBQVSHg5rNPMCpn3XdAQHpuwP/UsQZ9AXXyK6IkNLg+jXne6K3Y/ZE2wce xSy9ll0gCyeEMEN6pX9vreECxN7wt494Tp4FEKHKuXPYQ7MHdzy4TuYh3kSp3sX/ uCauRK8wnmIhq94GcxPmTNwNkLCtB5FtKWFqjnXAWq5FMSxLqyF7B4yUpN9KG47m ou07hTo0dl0= =Vlo0 -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
