Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I can probably get you a contact from the Eclipse folks who run the Eclipse Plugin Central site, if you need/want any ideas, or answers to questions.On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactivefor a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that itwould be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipseprovides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not aplugin "repository" per se but more like a community building sitewith discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location isreferenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site isoperated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimosince I think it would be a great compliment to sites likegeronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate theGeronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domainname geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipseplugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to createand run a community site.Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin communitysite available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would loveto get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and haslots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of whatcan be accomplished with some further work and direction from theGeronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugindiscussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewedand rated by the community.With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate thegeronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven'theard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement inthe Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing thenI would like to offer full ownership and operational control of thissite to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the siteonto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how theywould react to MySQL and Joomla :-).Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the siteand to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernancreated the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in theGeronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep thecontent organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on thelook and feel, graphics, etc ;-)Looking forward to your feedback.PaulOn 6/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 great idea Paul.Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED]? Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David -sachin
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Plugins is becoming such a general term now days, I think the only real way to distinguish the overlap is through education and good documentation, not by renaming the technologies which I think would add further confusion.On Aug 24, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:As for your second point about Geronimo plugins vs. the Geronimo Eclipse plugin terminology, I totally agree with you that this will be confusing to end users. Actually since Geronimo decided to introduce the concept of plugins I have started to notice how many other types of software besides Eclipse also use that term. My browser, for example, just told me that "Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page". I was using a Macromedia product that also complained that I needed a plugin. etc. I don't have any specific ideas on how to avoid confusing users about the terminology overlap, other than to make sure that Geronimo's Eclipse plugin is listed at the appropriate site :-) -sachin
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP, MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings. But I am looking into some low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings since I'm really starting to feel the pain of you get what you pay for :-) I don't know where infra draws the line on what software they'll agree to host on Apache hardware. Best wishes, Paul On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open source project. Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a variety of open source licensed code. Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? -dain
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Dain, One additional aspect I just thought of is that the Geronimo team might decide to someday create a plugin repository that is equivalent to geronimoplugins.com at the location you mentioned (geronimo.apache.org/plugins) for hosting plugins that are developed by/for the Apache projects. geronimoplugincentral.org would point at the plugins hosted at that site, Aaron's site, commercial sites, Joe's mom's site, etc... Best wishes, Paul On 8/25/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP, MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings. But I am looking into some low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings since I'm really starting to feel the pain of you get what you pay for :-) I don't know where infra draws the line on what software they'll agree to host on Apache hardware. Best wishes, Paul On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open source project. Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a variety of open source licensed code. Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? -dain
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Paul McMahan wrote: I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is important then I'm definitely game. All of the software currently used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP, MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings. But I am looking into some low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings since I'm really starting to feel the pain of you get what you pay for :-) Take a look, at Invision Power Board http://www.invisionpower.com/ip.dynamic/products/board/index.html The best I know for an affordable price. The SimpleForum is sometimes really a pain even for small forums. Thanks, Mario
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 8/25/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? I don't think it's a requirement to run on ASF hardware, but a natural solution - the closer the better. All in all, your proposal is the best I've seen lately. Easy to remember and noone would think it's hosted outside the project. I like it so much that it's going to be profoundly hard to convince me to use something else. Thanks Dain! Jacek -- Jacek Laskowski http://www.laskowski.net.pl
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites? and What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?, etc... I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development how to's (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Strike my comment about IE. It looks like I had set my viewing font to larger. Doing this made some of the text on the initial page really large (such that it wrapped and the bottom of the chars on the first line were touching the top of the chars on the second line). It also messed up the links to the actual plugins such that the underlines went thru the link name itself (like a low strike-through). Anyway,l when I changed the view font back to smallest everything looks the same on IE as it appears on firefox. Joe Joe Bohn wrote: This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites? and What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?, etc... I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development how to's (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Hi Joe, what are the problems you see with IE? I mainly use Firefox but so far I can't tell the difference for what I tested with IE. Can you send me a link? Cheers! Hernan Joe Bohn wrote: This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites? and What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?, etc... I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development how to's (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think we should try to make these two sites work together rather than against one another. What are your thoughts on this? Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two complementary and easily confusing technologies? Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 8/24/06, Joe Bohn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster communication between plugin users. I do have some general curiosity questions like What happens if a plugin exists on multiple sites? and What does it take to get a new plugin site registered?, etc... I get the gist of what you're saying, which is that there are lots of details to be worked out, and I agree. I think it is fortunate that EclipsePluginCentral has already been around for a while and has a well established community so when necessary we can always look to their site for ideas. Longer term I think there could be good synergy between EclipsePluginCentral and GeronimoPluginCentral. We have communicated about Geronimo related effort and they even offered to donate some of their custom site modules. For your specific questions: - If plugins exist on multiple sites then there could either be a review article for each instance or a single article that lists both download locations if the metadata is otherwise the same for both. - For a content management system like Joomla (which is what drives the site) handling new content submission is a bread and butter activity. For example I assigned Author permission to your account so now you should see a link on the Plugin Repositories page to add new content. I think there's a way to allow any registered user to submit new content but I'm still figuring some things out. I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers. However, there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well? If the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to plugin development how to's (of course we would need to create these first ourselves). There's a Plugin Development discussion forum, and it would be easy to set up a bigger area of the site dedicated to helping plugin developers. But that might be an area of overlap with what we use the Geornimo wiki for, so for now I'm focused on the plugin directory and the discussion forum. One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely has some formatting problems with IE. Paul McMahan wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Looking forward to your feedback. Paul On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open source project. Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a variety of open source licensed code. Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. Bruce Snyder wrote: On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think we should try to make these two sites work together rather than against one another. What are your thoughts on this? Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two complementary and easily confusing technologies? Bruce
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Hey Bruce, Glad you asked these questions. I have not had any offline discussions with Aaron about geronimoplugins.com. My intention was to have any conversation here on the dev list in context of where the discussion left off before. My gmail reader threads the whole discussion together for me nicely so maybe I'm taking that context for granted since it actually transpired a while ago :-) Here is a link to the mail archives for historical purposes: http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200606.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] I do not see any conflict or overlap between the two efforts. In fact I find them quite complimentary since geronimoplugins.com site is a privately owned plugin repository that hosts plugins and (if things work out as I would hope) geronimoplugincentral is a Geronimo PMC owned site that supports the community and provides an index of plugins that are hosted elsewhere. This is exactly analogous to how Eclipse has set up their plugin ecosystem -- there are many plugin sites where you can download plugins directly into your Eclipse runtime, and there is a community site (Eclipse Plugin Central) that supports the user community with forums, reviews, etc. My intent is to follow their lead where it makes sense since they already have been in this space for a long time. As for your second point about Geronimo plugins vs. the Geronimo Eclipse plugin terminology, I totally agree with you that this will be confusing to end users. Actually since Geronimo decided to introduce the concept of plugins I have started to notice how many other types of software besides Eclipse also use that term. My browser, for example, just told me that Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page. I was using a Macromedia product that also complained that I needed a plugin. etc. I don't have any specific ideas on how to avoid confusing users about the terminology overlap, other than to make sure that Geronimo's Eclipse plugin is listed at the appropriate site :-) Best wishes, Paul On 8/24/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey folks. This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse provides at Eclipse Plugin Central. This Eclipse plugin site is not a plugin repository per se but more like a community building site with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins. The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is referenced from the plugin articles. The Eclipse plugin site is operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation. I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the Geronimo development community at large. So I purchased the domain name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create and run a community site. Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love to get your feedback on. It is definitely a work in progress and has lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the Geronimo community. Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed and rated by the community. With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't heard back from infra@ on that yet. If there's general agreement in the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this site to the Geronimo PMC. I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they would react to MySQL and Joomla :-). Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site and to help administer it when its ready for the masses. Hernan created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the content organized. I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the look and feel, graphics, etc ;-) Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think we should try to make these two sites work together rather than against one another. What are your thoughts on this? Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote: I don't think they are competing but complimentary. If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused. It then points to any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many). At least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com). So I see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open source project. Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo project. I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a variety of open source licensed code. Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse. If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use geronimo.apache.org/plugins? -dain
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 great idea Paul. Paul McMahan wrote: There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Best wishes, Paul On 6/14/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Fwd: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Forwarding request to infra@ list. -- Forwarded message -- From: Paul McMahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Jun 19, 2006 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager) To: dev@geronimo.apache.org There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have discussed. It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download. It also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums. IMHO the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for building a healthy commercial and open source community around geronimo plugins. The domain names geronimoplugincentral.com and geronimoplugincentral.org were available and match the form used by eclipseplugincentral.com so I purchased them and would like to donate them to the ASF. How can I do that? Just send a note to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
David Blevins wrote: On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote: David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? A nice temporary solution. I think that we can come up w/ something better than an either/or link to plugin servers. I know what you mean. Maven has an ordered list of repos and there isn't really a default sans the fact the list is seeded with ibiblio.org. We could seed with two or three repos if we had em. It would be cool if we could leverage the Apache mirror system for plugins. It would be cool if Maven came up with a wagon that could use the Apache mirror system for repos. Regards, Alan
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help from the infra folks :) David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I can help with infra stuff. Please loop me in when you need it. thanks, dims On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help from the infra folks :) David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiram Chirino wrote: Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? That would mean a) someone would need to set up and maintain that, and (more importantly) b) the default location would necessarily exclude any plugins not licensed under the Apache licence. Would it be a good idea to exclude those from being listed at the default site? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRJFjc5rNPMCpn3XdAQJz3wQArIgmJK/0pH4tiKEJoosLV48L5i6cIaOT A88ZAA0BigHVZCOAsTRhRYv+oNVdkbZCgS1V1wnlqxBV6bINQHhy/D1m6SZ9hJfy VY69Tf9U3Ncy1dzOARLibG6bvdH8V2Eeq1wbdkzkUF8JET0kKH6w+zhiJpYHhU/U rTUdxhs9UzY= =JQUs -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
-0, i do not see the need of maintaining two different sites for plugins,unless no one will ever want a plugin with non ASL compatible dependencies.As soon as the geronimoplugins.org site is administered by the geronimo community,I do not see any needs to host it at Apache. This site has no brand or advertising, and if it is administered by the community, it will never have such a thing, so why bother having an ASL only repo ?Cheers,Guillaume NodetOn 6/15/06, David Blevins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Everyone, please read and ACK.On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option.I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.Histhoughts are clear though.On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else.Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default?I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me.Aaron seems to agree.In fact,is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?-David
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiram Chirino wrote: On 6/12/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron wrote: Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how? I responded: People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they feel comfortable. It's not for me to reveal their information; they can do so themselves on the dev list. If they feel comfortable doing so. This feels wrong to me. It might just be my personal philosophy, but typically, I don't give any credit to an accusation unless the accuser is willing to stand behind the accusation in the open. Typically I agree. Out in the open, or with evidence. In this case, answering the request for exact names and methods would essentially have been gossip. Yes, I understand the concept of feeling intimidated, but that concept is to easy to hide behind for the purpose of slinging around false accusations. And because someone *can* misuse it the default assumption should be that everyone *will*? That attitude is at least as destructive as the intimidation itself might be. In this case, there have been multiple independent sources corroborating each other. If someone is in distress because it feels intimidated, fears at least as much if not more distress will ensue if it 'goes public,' and you're asked to for help about it -- what do you do? What if multiple people have approached you independently? Do you ignore their concerns until they're 'brave' enough to speak up publicly? Or change things so that intimidation is more difficult? - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRJFrOJrNPMCpn3XdAQJwXQP9GcxzekhURZ71mhcXlEK+N5kuuYxPwsyN q4d9aIY34OhbNL+lqum12p7q64xdTOnu7W76Mqu8UgHwVpYcLQ1tBeqVcnURHmS9 kMaGk96Z62oM0WOExHs4LW31d1QkfRmyEJ6UC3P0cQGPqhDJobMlibrUPE7vKflf psMcP8ggFGg= =2adA -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I agree with Jeff that 'whining' is an inappropriate typification of what has been happening here -- particularly since the discussion has been fed by specific requests. Aaron Mulder wrote: It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for providing a solution that the project needs. I am utterly baffled by why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a charity effort. And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying that my contributions outweight anybody else's. Finally, it's not at all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap. Jeff, I must be stupid. Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository. I also think there are posts that are phrased with loaded language and drip with excess drama. My personal opinion. - -- #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 iQCVAwUBRJFsB5rNPMCpn3XdAQLAdgP9HJjtSs99nYH8J0ouhtS9T27H4HaPoI3I itbsGOarE5g/MPVK7h42HVQrGexajsVIvVgPsjjWsEKGJWPyefSCYH7VHSz1/3NB xiocK+d+uXJma+Fcp3BC9/Di2edbb1OAA7fCr+RbAp0Q51YZOOTP0akTcGNswGBy s4++EHgJWIo= =Xle3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work. (We'll need some help from the infra folks :) Um, I'm afraid I need to clarify my position. If the Geronimo community thinks it would be best to create and maintain an Apache site and make it the default, I am certainly fine with that. However, personally, I don't think that's a good idea. I don't see the point in spending all the effort only to create a second site that has a subset of the functionality of the first site (e.g. the same Apache plugins but none of the non-Apache plugins). Also, maintaining one site is enough work and I'm not volunteering to help create or maintain the Apache site, though of course I would be happy to answer questions and give pointers to anyone who's going to do it. Thanks, Aaron David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? A nice temporary solution. I think that we can come up w/ something better than an either/or link to plugin servers. Regards, Alan
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Dain Sundstrom wrote: I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and put together a site. At that point we have have an open discussion on the default link. We had a nice open discussion about the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the default to change. Perfect example of our excellent communication skills. Whining vs coding? Where does what occurred have anything to do with coding? This is a total obfuscation of the issue entirely. The issue is communication...communication...communication...not the plugins site. I truly have a problem expressing this, don't I? Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers. -dain On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? That is a great question. If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster. The key missing component was the discussion ;-) I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or lack thereof regarding this site. Thanks, Jeff
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I started this thread and at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness. Aaron, I for one would like to say that my frustration that started the monster was fueled by about 3 hours sleep and the right combination of responses on the thread. I can't say the frustrations weren't real as they were but I think the thread has gotten off track. You are not an evil immoral person. You're a smart and creative developer that I imagine is more focused on doing than perhaps taking other things into consideration. I forget to shave, I have lapses in judgement and I imagine there are those that can say I use colourful language that is not normally part of my vocabulary. Am I evil and immoral, no (at least I hope not). At this point I'd like us all to walk away from the thread with some food for thought and some changes in the way we interact. Could I have been more pedantic on dates for the release? Administration was not one of the gifts I received. Could you have communicated the geronimoplugins thing earlier and solicited feedback; sure. I'll offer this olive branch if your willing. Let's work together to get the couple of things that make sense for Apache as plugins setup on our site. Let's fix the problem Dain so aptly pointed out that we are beating to death and could have solved 10 times. I got some really good feedback on the plugins from a customer, er... hmmm..., a user, yeah that's it, a user :) that they thought would make it really useful to them. I'll start a separate thread on that. As the policeman said at the scene of the accident, Ok folks, move along, there is nothing to see here anymore. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? Of course not. We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? You are not wrong. It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for providing a solution that the project needs. I am utterly baffled by why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a charity effort. And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying that my contributions outweight anybody else's. Finally, it's not at all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap. Jeff, I must be stupid. Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository. Thanks, Aaron On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to consensus on. That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I had to offer up why it bothers me. Thats my penny's worth ;-) Jeff On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Sure. I especially look forward to the constructive feedback from users. I have some thoughts to add to that thread that came from a user at one of our recent talks. Thanks, Aaron On 6/14/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I started this thread and at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness. Aaron, I for one would like to say that my frustration that started the monster was fueled by about 3 hours sleep and the right combination of responses on the thread. I can't say the frustrations weren't real as they were but I think the thread has gotten off track. You are not an evil immoral person. You're a smart and creative developer that I imagine is more focused on doing than perhaps taking other things into consideration. I forget to shave, I have lapses in judgement and I imagine there are those that can say I use colourful language that is not normally part of my vocabulary. Am I evil and immoral, no (at least I hope not). At this point I'd like us all to walk away from the thread with some food for thought and some changes in the way we interact. Could I have been more pedantic on dates for the release? Administration was not one of the gifts I received. Could you have communicated the geronimoplugins thing earlier and solicited feedback; sure. I'll offer this olive branch if your willing. Let's work together to get the couple of things that make sense for Apache as plugins setup on our site. Let's fix the problem Dain so aptly pointed out that we are beating to death and could have solved 10 times. I got some really good feedback on the plugins from a customer, er... hmmm..., a user, yeah that's it, a user :) that they thought would make it really useful to them. I'll start a separate thread on that. As the policeman said at the scene of the accident, Ok folks, move along, there is nothing to see here anymore. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? Of course not. We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? You are not wrong. It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for providing a solution that the project needs. I am utterly baffled by why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a charity effort. And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying that my contributions outweight anybody else's. Finally, it's not at all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap. Jeff, I must be stupid. Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository. Thanks, Aaron On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
I agree with this - we'll fix the default in the next rev. There have been some good ideas (including mine, I think) and we'll see how they work in code. geir David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
+1 david jencks On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David +1 John
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce -- Regards, Hiram
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Hi Ken, On 6/12/06, Rodent of Unusual Size [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron wrote: Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how? I responded: People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they feel comfortable. It's not for me to reveal their information; they can do so themselves on the dev list. If they feel comfortable doing so. This feels wrong to me. It might just be my personal philosophy, but typically, I don't give any credit to an accusation unless the accuser is willing to stand behind the accusation in the open. Yes, I understand the concept of feeling intimidated, but that concept is to easy to hide behind for the purpose of slinging around false accusations. -- Regards, Hiram
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to consensus on. That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I had to offer up why it bothers me. Thats my penny's worth ;-) Jeff On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? Regards, Hiram On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to consensus on. That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I had to offer up why it bothers me. Thats my penny's worth ;-) Jeff On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce -- Regards, Hiram
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? That is a great question. If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster. The key missing component was the discussion ;-) I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or lack thereof regarding this site. Thanks, Jeff Regards, Hiram On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to consensus on. That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I had to offer up why it bothers me. Thats my penny's worth ;-) Jeff On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? Of course not. We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? You are not wrong. It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for providing a solution that the project needs. I am utterly baffled by why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a charity effort. And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying that my contributions outweight anybody else's. Finally, it's not at all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap. Jeff, I must be stupid. Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository. Thanks, Aaron On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to consensus on. That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I had to offer up why it bothers me. Thats my penny's worth ;-) Jeff On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce -- Regards, Hiram
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. To give you and the list some insight into why I am concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private e-mail from Aaron after I started the Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site thread on the dev list. I didn't get any response to my mail. I think we need to discuss these concerns and how they could be addressed. Regards, John - Hi Aaron, I like the concept of the plugins site. I get concerned when important things like this aren't discussed openly before being implemented. I'm pretty sure you weren't planning on doing anything nasty, but I am more concerned (with my ASF hat on) with some of the issues that may be encountered in the future such as: - Arguments over why an external site was made the default instead of an ASF site, possibly giving the owners of the site a financial advantage (e.g. advertising on the site etc.) I have no problems with you having your own plugins site, but if it is the default, it is though the ASF is endorsing it and giving you an advantage over anyone else who would like to do the same. - Concern whether in the long run the site can continue to afford the bandwidth, maintenance etc without charging for it - What is there to stop you getting nasty if things go sour? What would the impact on Geronimo be if that happened considering you would have a reasonable amount of traffic/exposure going to your plugins site? In a perfect world I wouldn't have these concerns.. One way some of these concerns could be overcome is to have non ASF code hosted in an open hosting environment where an individual/company does not hold the keys to the site. If you want to chat more, you can contact me via IRC or my yahoo ID ** but I would prefer this to be discussed openly. Regards, John Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/14/06, John Sisson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. To give you and the list some insight into why I am concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private e-mail from Aaron after I started the Questions about www.geronimoplugins.com site thread on the dev list. I didn't get any response to my mail. I think we need to discuss these concerns and how they could be addressed. Regards, John - Hi Aaron, I like the concept of the plugins site. I get concerned when important things like this aren't discussed openly before being implemented. I'm pretty sure you weren't planning on doing anything nasty, but I am more concerned (with my ASF hat on) with some of the issues that may be encountered in the future such as: - Arguments over why an external site was made the default instead of an ASF site, possibly giving the owners of the site a financial advantage (e.g. advertising on the site etc.) I have no problems with you having your own plugins site, but if it is the default, it is though the ASF is endorsing it and giving you an advantage over anyone else who would like to do the same. - Concern whether in the long run the site can continue to afford the bandwidth, maintenance etc without charging for it - What is there to stop you getting nasty if things go sour? What would the impact on Geronimo be if that happened considering you would have a reasonable amount of traffic/exposure going to your plugins site? In a perfect world I wouldn't have these concerns.. One way some of these concerns could be overcome is to have non ASF code hosted in an open hosting environment where an individual/company does not hold the keys to the site. As the person who originally formulated and then discussed this entire idea with Aaron, I'll step up here and address these issues. I know that Aaron has said this before, but I'll inject my knowledge. When Aaron and I were first discussing the idea of hosting custom configurations for Geronimo and developing a command line tool for fetching them and making each Geronimo instance a server of it's custom configs, the biggest dilemma I hit was how to offer hosting of the configs in a manner that allowed software using any license to be hosted. Apache won't allow any *GPL software, the Codehaus will allow LGPL but not GPL (which I discovered by having a conversation with Jason van Zyl), SourceForge allows any license but has experienced some serious connectivity issues in the past that made me say no to that idea right away. The conclusion that I drew was that there was no easy answer outside of possibly hosting a brand new site somewhere. As Aaron and I discussed this matter, I got really busy with work and wasn't available as often. So Aaron began to flesh out the idea further which is how he developed the notion of plugins instead of custom configurations (which, if I might add, is a much better idea - plugins, that is). This style of development has been done by all of us in the past at one time or another, especially on this project. I think I know Aaron well enough to know that he had the best of intentions when creating the plugins site. In fact, he even said that he had no issue with anyone else helping to administer the site/machine/domain. Unfortunately nobody took him up on it. To get the idea off the ground, someone had to purchase the domain name and look into hosting and this is another area where Aaron stepped up. I'm sure that he figured that the administrative aspects would be dealt with once everyone saw the fruits of his labor and how beneficial this could be for Geronimo. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
[CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? -David
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and put together a site. At that point we have have an open discussion on the default link. We had a nice open discussion about the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the default to change. Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers. -dain On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? That is a great question. If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster. The key missing component was the discussion ;-) I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or lack thereof regarding this site. Thanks, Jeff
Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)
On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, David Blevins wrote: Everyone, please read and ACK. On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote: Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the default option. I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast. His thoughts are clear though. On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote: All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? That pretty much sums it up for me. Aaron seems to agree. In fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree? +1 -dain
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
+1 On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and put together a site. At that point we have have an open discussion on the default link. We had a nice open discussion about the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the default to change. Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers. -dain On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? That is a great question. If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster. The key missing component was the discussion ;-) I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or lack thereof regarding this site. Thanks, Jeff -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? That is a great question. If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster. The key missing component was the discussion ;-) I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or lack thereof regarding this site. Cool, I'm glad we are getting over this non-issue. The thing that worries me most about working in the Geronimo community is that it seems that folks a quick to assume the worst out of the contributors the project! I have no clue why this happens. I'm not sure. I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good! Thanks, Jeff Regards, Hiram On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: I wouldn't care.. And I don't understand why anyone else would either? I think Matt was trying to make a point. I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others here. That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect each other. Although injecting that site into G may not be wrong per-se, it clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort that discussion probably should have preceded the action. Call me a moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed virtuas.com in the server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is just me. To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application server. It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer, Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort without open discussion. I think people perceive that they are being exploited...again maybe that's just me. I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be the default site. So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a community/group/team, need to come to consensus on. That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I had to offer up why it bothers me. Thats my penny's worth ;-) Jeff On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sure. I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good! lol... geez.. I always hit send way too quick! -- Regards, Hiram Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and put together a site. At that point we have have an open discussion on the default link. We had a nice open discussion about the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the default to change. Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers. I tend to agree with these sentiments. The poor interactions on the project lately have deteriorated far enough. What I really don't understand is why so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction to occurrences in the project anymore. It's as if everyone must interject their opinion into every discussion no matter whether it adds value or not. Face it, none of us can be aware of every single thing that is being done within Geronimo. It's simply too big to mind every little thing and be a part of every single point. I also say enough jumping on the bandwagon to bash someone and what they didn't do. Let's try to focus on the positives and if there are negatives, talk about solutions instead of just bitching about the problem because it's just not productive. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Funnily enough, GMail had this to offer at the top of my mail window: The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. - Walt Disney (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltdisney131640.html) :) - Brett On 15/06/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and put together a site. At that point we have have an open discussion on the default link. We had a nice open discussion about the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the default to change. Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers. I tend to agree with these sentiments. The poor interactions on the project lately have deteriorated far enough. What I really don't understand is why so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction to occurrences in the project anymore. It's as if everyone must interject their opinion into every discussion no matter whether it adds value or not. Face it, none of us can be aware of every single thing that is being done within Geronimo. It's simply too big to mind every little thing and be a part of every single point. I also say enough jumping on the bandwagon to bash someone and what they didn't do. Let's try to focus on the positives and if there are negatives, talk about solutions instead of just bitching about the problem because it's just not productive. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ -- Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org Better Builds with Maven book - http://library.mergere.com/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/14/06, Brett Porter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funnily enough, GMail had this to offer at the top of my mail window: The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. - Walt Disney (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltdisney131640.html) :) Actually I saw that Web Clip earlier this week for this very thread :-). Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
+1 Dain Sundstrom wrote: I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding. If you ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and put together a site. At that point we have have an open discussion on the default link. We had a nice open discussion about the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the default to change. Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers. -dain On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote: Hiram Chirino wrote: Hi Jeff, All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site. Now the default link issue is something else. Can we point it by default at some Apache machines by default? I'm sure Aaron would not mind, would you? We do things like this all the time. Our maven builds are TOTALLY dependent on non asf hardware. If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and friends. And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts. Or an I wrong? That is a great question. If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster. The key missing component was the discussion ;-) I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or lack thereof regarding this site. Thanks, Jeff
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I had to re-read that one a couple of times :) Hiram Chirino wrote: On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: sure. I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good! lol... geez.. I always hit send way too quick!
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Openness indeed. Aaron Mulder wrote: Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one Which project? Geronimo? The plugins effort? and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue). I've offered a number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and so far, no one's taken me up on it. My goals are to provide a Maven repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL, proprietary. Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious enoguh to provide one. And now you're jumping on her for it? That's gratitude! The problem here is perceptual. There wasn't a 'hey, what do people think about this?' message first, and being presented with the site as a fait accompli was unsettling. What is your counter-proposal? IMHO, more 'what do people think' before doing things that are high-profile or difficult to back out. Or at all, for that matter. Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira. I thought I was using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing to work on what. Including, of course, a todo list for myself. If a release is in process, assigning a bunch of bugs into it without at least consulting the people involved in it -- especially the release manager -- is bad form. For one thing, it can make the release manager look like a jerk. By all means, if you object to something I do like that, please say something! Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's *definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks or whatever. I don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact. But it didn't occur to you that the versioning of the JIRAs was related to the versioning of the release? And that the release manager should maybe be consulted? Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about so long as we were all together. I'm sorry that there's a perception of an exclusionary wall. I can't see that as anything but a handwave. At least one person, possibly two, has told me that at the meeting he asked, 'Can I tell Geir where we are?' and received an emphatic, 'No. Geir's not welcome here.' That's pretty clearly exclusionary. Perhaps that question wasn't asked of *you*. I'll let the querist(s) speak up with exact details of who asked whom what and got what response if he/they don't mind. Also, now that you've given blanket permission, here's what you said when I asked for a copy of the invitation message: Here is a copy for you, but I feel pretty strongly that this is not an appropriate subject for the dev list. Not exclusionary? You felt even the *subject* wasn't appropriate for discussion. And from the text of the invitation itself: I'd like to keep this group fairly focused... thus the limited distribution. That doesn't sound like 'let's keep the numbers small so we can afford lunch.' If you objected, why am I first hearing about it now? Here is where some of the intimidation issue raises its head. Matt says: I did object at the meeting but there seemed to be strong avoidance to including some people so I backed off. Jeff has also mentioned: Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email to me started out with Watch your tone. This is the intimidation stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit. That's directed specifically at you, and about offline interactions; but re the J1 meeting, that someone felt he had to back down rather than argue his point sounds like peer pressure brought to bear. And anyway, what is the perception of the right thing to do? If it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer, and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should happen? Of course not. But selecting who's allowed to be there and who isn't, and actively excluding project committers, isn't the right thing under any circumstances. So what's the right thing? We can figure it out.. but we now have an example of a *wrong* thing. No amount of handwaving, persiflage, or rhetoric is going to turn this sow's ear into a silk purse. I'm glad you've changed your mind and want all of the back-channel crap brought out into the open. I consider that to be progress. For myself, the purpose of not being specific was to protect people who didn't want to be directly identified. -- #kenP-|} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp!
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron Mulder wrote: Dims, Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful message. Perhaps -- and evidently -- not useful to you, but it appears that others have caught on. (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago? I don't know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today. What's the message?) 'Why': because it was evident that some of the PMC members were experiencing serious conflicts of interest, and it appeared that they were being resolved to the project's detriment. 'The message': No particular message; their project responsibilities shouldn't have to complete unfavourably with their work or personal desires, and now don't. You in your e-mail right here have said what you though went wrong and how you think it could be corrected in the future. One of my biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair is that they have done neither. Untrue. There were extended discussions in the PMC. You voluntarily resigned from the PMC, and wouldn't reconsider even when I explicitly asked you. That you have thereby deprived yourself of a source of information and excluded yourself from some project-related meta-discussions is a condition you have chosen. To more directly address your remark: just because you are unaware of a fact does not make it nonexistent. In conversation with the PMC chair I practically begged him to tell me I had done something wrong WRT the JavaOne meeting and what should be done differently next time. He declined. Let me quote some of the exchanges, interspersed from the back-and-forth thread: === Aaron wrote: What's the point of posting the invitation to the dev list? I responded: I asked you to post the invitation because there is some confusion about it, and seeing the actual message would clear that up. Aaron wrote: I'm especially confused by the implication that any development has been done in private. What development is that? I responded: That's part of the confusion surrounding the invitation. Aaron wrote: On whose part? I responded: Primarily on the part of people who heard about it but weren't included even though they're on the project, and others who heard about it who *aren't* on the project. Aaron wrote: Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how? I responded: People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they feel comfortable. It's not for me to reveal their information; they can do so themselves on the dev list. If they feel comfortable doing so. Aaron wrote: And why is there concern over a gathering of friends at a conference? I responded: Because there are concerns that it was rather more than that. For one thing, you don't typically get corporate sponsors for 'gatherings of friends.' And people charged with oversight of an open project have to be sensitive to what they do that relates to the project. Aaron wrote: It should be pretty clear from the invitation there was no secret development nor intimidation of non-invited project members. [*** Note that it certainly couldn't be clear, one way or the other, to anyone who hadn't *seen* the invitation; hence the desire to make it available to people so they could draw their own conclusions from it about any concerns they might have had.] I responded: The Monday meeting and the development model change are separate issues. The 'intimidation' aspect has nothing to do with the invitation. The 'secret development' aspect comes in when some committers are invited to participate and others are deliberately excluded. Aaron wrote: Further, since you have not shared any specific concerns regarding intimidation or secret development with me, I'm going to assume there are none that are pertinent to me. Not trying to be a jerk here, but no wrongdoing has been pointed out to me, so my plan is to not lose sleep over what didn't happen. I responded: That's cool. [*** Note that this is an unsatisfactory end to this issue; I said I wasn't going to name names, and Aaron said he was going to regard that as meaning he wasn't involved. Not necessarily a valid conclusion to draw.] === I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any kind that he thought needed to be changed. He declined. I think the message you provided below If I had known about the meeting I would have done this... What Apache projects usually do is this... All it would have taken was this... was extremely useful. Please, please encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future. That approach has been taken, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge it. The message is: Apache Geronimo is a collaborative effort. Committers are peers. Cliques are inappropriate, as are significant changes made unilaterally and without community input. Is that message sufficiently clear? -- #kenP-|} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Matt Hogstrom wrote: Aaron, I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made several mistakes. We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the rework). After that we let the TCK stumble, etc. From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a significant release. I would like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after we cut 1.1. For that release I want to address outstanding JIRAs, usability and performance. When I hear usability and performance, I hear feature improvements and additions, not patching. Let us not repeat the same mistake with a patch branch. Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in helping out there as well. I'll start another thread on that topic when we get 1.1 out the door. I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some incremental 1.1.x releases it might fill in the gaps nicely. *.*.x should be for patches. What you seem to be proposing is dangerous. I wonder if I am missing something. Regards, Alan
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Alan D. Cabrera wrote: Matt Hogstrom wrote: Aaron, I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made several mistakes. We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the rework). After that we let the TCK stumble, etc. From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a significant release. I would like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after we cut 1.1. For that release I want to address outstanding JIRAs, usability and performance. When I hear usability and performance, I hear feature improvements and additions, not patching. Let us not repeat the same mistake with a patch branch. I think the terms are overloaded and do require some clarification. I'd like to move them out of this unrelated thread though...will start a new one. Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in helping out there as well. I'll start another thread on that topic when we get 1.1 out the door. I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some incremental 1.1.x releases it might fill in the gaps nicely. *.*.x should be for patches. What you seem to be proposing is dangerous. I wonder if I am missing something. Regards, Alan
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron, I like the schedule below. From a 1.1 perspective I think we made several mistakes. We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the rework). After that we let the TCK stumble, etc. From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a significant release. I would like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after we cut 1.1. For that release I want to address outstanding JIRAs, usability and performance. Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in helping out there as well. I'll start another thread on that topic when we get 1.1 out the door. I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some incremental 1.1.x releases it might fill in the gaps nicely. Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds good. Can you put together a time table representation of this idea? It would help me understand the nuances. Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2: June 12: 1.1 released - select release manager for 1.2 - set goals for 1.2 July 1: 1.2-M1 released July 21: 1.2-M2 released August 14: 1.2-beta1 released Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2 Oct 1: release 1.2 Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release. And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1 then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan. What do you think? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Just my $0.02. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret agendas. This would dismay me as I fully expect that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think communication is the primary thing we need to deal with. Jeff A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Just my $0.02. Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret agendas. This would dismay me as I fully expect that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think communication is the primary thing we need to deal with. Jeff A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Just my $0.02. Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron Mulder wrote: In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'. Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to see this thread degrade into a flame-fest. I would much rather that we can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely enough of a communication problem, that things were quietly being put in and the issue and concern was raised by others. Clearly people have raised that we need to communicate more, and the RTC initiative, in and of itself, is an indication that we need to bring a lot more discussion to the lists. If this is not clear, then we have a much greater problem that I had imagined. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret agendas. This would dismay me as I fully expect that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think communication is the primary thing we need to deal with. Jeff A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Just my $0.02. Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Could use the Road Map feature of JIRA... though I think that works better with more frequent releases (so that the number of issues is less). I like how Atlassian uses their JIRA (and Confluence) to organize their releases. I would like to see G use something closer to their approach. --jason
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to see this thread degrade into a flame-fest. I would much rather that we can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely enough of a communication problem, that things were quietly being put in and the issue and concern was raised by others. And, in my opinion, a non-trivial part of the problem is nebulous accusations with no specifics. How can we agree not to accuse people of secret agendas, if no one knows what accusations are being made and on what basis? How can we agree not to quietly put things into the product if no one will state what quietly means and what was quietly put in? How can we discuss whether people were being intimidated if no one can provide an example of intimidation? I'm no longer williing to entertain people saying other people are saying there's an issue. I don't feel like saying what the issue is, or I don't know -- it was all other people saying it or whatever. If there's a problem, state it specifically, let's have the flame fest, and we'll agree on how to do things better moving forward. I believe it is 100% counterproductive to keep asserting that things are going wrong without any specifics. If we don't discuss, there won't be improvement. Thanks, Aaron Clearly people have raised that we need to communicate more, and the RTC initiative, in and of itself, is an indication that we need to bring a lot more discussion to the lists. If this is not clear, then we have a much greater problem that I had imagined. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron, A flame-fest is counter productive...I prefer we keep this professional. If folks want to see the issues, the mail lists are available for people to read over the last several weeks and make their own opinion. There is more than enough information there to clearly show there are concerns on how we communicate, and our methods of communication. The point is, we need to work on our communication with each other on several levels, and we can choose to agree that we all can work with each other better, both from a informational issue, down to the way we address each other, or we can also choose to look the other way and continue down the path that we have. We know exactly where that path leads us from a consequences perspective, and its not good. Jeff Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to see this thread degrade into a flame-fest. I would much rather that we can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely enough of a communication problem, that things were quietly being put in and the issue and concern was raised by others. And, in my opinion, a non-trivial part of the problem is nebulous accusations with no specifics. How can we agree not to accuse people of secret agendas, if no one knows what accusations are being made and on what basis? How can we agree not to quietly put things into the product if no one will state what quietly means and what was quietly put in? How can we discuss whether people were being intimidated if no one can provide an example of intimidation? I'm no longer williing to entertain people saying other people are saying there's an issue. I don't feel like saying what the issue is, or I don't know -- it was all other people saying it or whatever. If there's a problem, state it specifically, let's have the flame fest, and we'll agree on how to do things better moving forward. I believe it is 100% counterproductive to keep asserting that things are going wrong without any specifics. If we don't discuss, there won't be improvement. Thanks, Aaron Clearly people have raised that we need to communicate more, and the RTC initiative, in and of itself, is an indication that we need to bring a lot more discussion to the lists. If this is not clear, then we have a much greater problem that I had imagined. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I think SuSE-like would be a good idea too. --jason -Original Message- From: Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39 To:dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret agendas. This would dismay me as I fully expect that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think communication is the primary thing we need to deal with. Jeff A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Just my $0.02. Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron, Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread. I think that will help. Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start. Here is a snip from whois of that domain. I removed the address specific information. Registrant: Address is provided *Removed* Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM Created on: 11-Apr-06 Expires on: 11-Apr-07 Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06 Administrative Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes. I was working to release 1.1 and you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release. I don't think that we agreed on how to handle JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since you were not releasing 1.1. We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU wanted which may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced several times. I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives. Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded members of the community. I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like. Given that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open as well. In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list allowing folks to paste their private notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your request. I'm happy to oblige. Bring it on. Matt Aaron Mulder wrote: In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I like that model too, as long as we can still deliver more than one release a year and we allow more people to have commit access to the sandbox area for more collaboration on major enhancements and changes... -Donald Jason Dillon wrote: I think SuSE-like would be a good idea too. --jason -Original Message- From: Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39 To:dev@geronimo.apache.org Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret agendas. This would dismay me as I fully expect that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think communication is the primary thing we need to deal with. Jeff A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult. But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. Just my $0.02. Bruce smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron, Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread. I think that will help. Sure. Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start. Here is a snip from whois of that domain. I removed the address specific information. Registrant: Address is provided *Removed* Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM Created on: 11-Apr-06 Expires on: 11-Apr-07 Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06 Administrative Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one, and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue). I've offered a number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and so far, no one's taken me up on it. My goals are to provide a Maven repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL, proprietary. Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious enoguh to provide one. And now you're jumping on her for it? That's gratitude! Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time. What is your counter-proposal? Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes. I was working to release 1.1 and you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release. I don't think that we agreed on how to handle JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since you were not releasing 1.1. Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira. I thought I was using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing to work on what. Including, of course, a todo list for myself. I honestly had no idea that as release manager, you considered Jira to be your domain, and didn't want people using without what -- your approval? By all means, if you object to something I do like that, please say something! Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's *definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks or whatever. I don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact. We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU wanted which may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced several times. I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives. Yes of course. I was explaining how I want to use an issue-tracking system. (Were your posts about how Jeff wants to use an issue tracking system?) I thought the point of the thread was for everyone to say what they're looking for so we can then decide the best way to do it as a group. Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded members of the community. I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like. Given that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open as well. Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about so long as we were all together. I'm sorry that there's a perception of an exclusionary wall. It was on us to pay for the food, which at hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't able to invite the entire Geronimo community. I apologize to everyone in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the discussion points to the mailing list. If you objected, why am I first hearing about it now? And anyway, what is the perception of the right thing to do? If it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer, and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should happen? If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or phone calls discussing Geronimo issues? Or are you going to provide an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of the night for the convenience of the Asian community? I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list allowing folks to paste
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was.
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. I'm not sure what this means. Can you elaborate? Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was.
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I have entered my own comments below... Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron, Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread. I think that will help. Sure. Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start. Here is a snip from whois of that domain. I removed the address specific information. Registrant: Address is provided *Removed* Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM Created on: 11-Apr-06 Expires on: 11-Apr-07 Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06 Administrative Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one, and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue). I've offered a number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and so far, no one's taken me up on it. My goals are to provide a Maven repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL, proprietary. Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious enoguh to provide one. And now you're jumping on her for it? That's gratitude! Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time. What is your counter-proposal? I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have been involved in. Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred. This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration. Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant discussion with others before taking action. Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email to me started out with Watch your tone. This is the intimidation stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit. Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded members of the community. I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like. Given that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open as well. Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about so long as we were all together. I'm sorry that there's a perception of an exclusionary wall. It was on us to pay for the food, which at hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't able to invite the entire Geronimo community. I apologize to everyone in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the discussion points to the mailing list. If you objected, why am I first hearing about it now? I attended for a total of about an hour. I am speaking from hearsay here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed? I was told by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting. And anyway, what is the perception of the right thing to do? If it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer, and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should happen? If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or phone calls discussing Geronimo issues? Or are you going to provide an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of the night for the convenience of the Asian community? I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together, they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they can work together. Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my conversation to the list after the fact? I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from so many people about this topic. Please help me understand. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
I just saw this thread and want to say my 2c, I haven't yet read the other threads and have to run out so sorry if this statement has been repeated. The most important thing we can do to make the project succeed is to ship, and to ship often. Moving forward we need to have a fixed interval of when we release and based on those intervals each of us need to be accountable on what we can commit. We desperately need to be able to give-up function, meaning we must be willing to modify our roadmap of contained items and defer items if they cannot be contained within the schedule, rather then push out the schedule which seems to be the easy answer. If we can prove to our users that they can constantly expect releases at consistent intervals this would be a huge win. Take a look at the Callisto effort in Eclipse. Not only has the Eclipse project not missed a release date in who knows how long (if ever), but now they are releasing 10 top level projects simultaneously. I say we learn from the eclipse model, follow it, and tweak the process to our needs. -sachin On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote: In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate on 'thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo'. As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we move forward. As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and try something different for the release after. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer organization, but it would most certainly help our user community immensely. I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made things extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group consensus, and thing have been quietly injected into Geronimo. I share Matt's feelings and frustrations. Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea. It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around talking about secret agendas. This would dismay me as I fully expect that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think communication is the primary thing we need to
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron, Sure. I assumed for a bit that the RTC [1] and PMC Changes [2] instituted by our pmc chair had sent a strong signal and wrongfully thought that had its desired effect, which is to help improve collaboration and make sure there are no exclusionary walls w.r.t participating in Geronimo development. -- dims [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114825592721785w=2 [2] http://geronimo.apache.org/contributors.html On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. I'm not sure what this means. Can you elaborate? Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have been involved in. Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred. Um... OK. I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was that big a deal. If it bothered you, I'm sorry. Let's talk about it. What do you recommend? The constraints I see are that is should be able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code. Do you agree? Disagree? What do you recommend for a hosting site? This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration. I find this extra-confusing. I took a piece of Geronimo which was hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or not as you please). And you feel that as the primary author of the code, you should have been consulted? That I'm somehow using your own hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a whole? I'm sorry for offending you. But I don't understand your objection. Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples, LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution. The Java 5 stack trace in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been working hard to slim down our distributions. I am pretty sure we agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while. But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is showing disrespect. We're all in this together, and it's not your code or my code, it's our code. I promise, if you make the console more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be offended, I'll buy you a beer. As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant discussion with others before taking action. Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion. Sorry it wasn't sooner, but better late than never, eh? Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email to me started out with Watch your tone. This is the intimidation stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit. Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to the list. :) Sorry. I attended for a total of about an hour. I am speaking from hearsay here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed? I was told by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting. This in-and-of-itself is the issue. Knowing Geir was in town, and especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event. JavaOne is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings (positive or negative) about each other. For those who could not attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged. This should have been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed not everyone was there. We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and Geronimo. We all should have the opportunity to engage as well. I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not invited, Geir and others. True, it would have been smart to arrange a dial-in. Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be overlooked either. If the outcome of this is that no one should have a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that (but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable). I talked to another committer at a different conference recently, and we brainstormed some ideas for improving the product. Was that wrong? Where's the line? Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't? If there was some policy, believe me, I'd work with it. Perhaps we should organize a series of
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have been involved in. Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred. Um... OK. I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was that big a deal. If it bothered you, I'm sorry. Let's talk about it. What do you recommend? The constraints I see are that is should be able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code. Do you agree? Disagree? What do you recommend for a hosting site? Lets make this another thread...I have several thoughts on this. Thanks for asking. This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration. I find this extra-confusing. I took a piece of Geronimo which was hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or not as you please). And you feel that as the primary author of the code, you should have been consulted? That I'm somehow using your own hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a whole? I'm sorry for offending you. But I don't understand your objection. There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea, and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate. It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine. I hope that makes sense... Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples, LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution. The Java 5 stack trace in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been working hard to slim down our distributions. I am pretty sure we agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while. But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is showing disrespect. We're all in this together, and it's not your code or my code, it's our code. I promise, if you make the console more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be offended, I'll buy you a beer. Yes...nothing wrong with the removal. It was the sudden appearance on geronimoplugins.com that I took issue with. This was purely a communication thing for me. As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant discussion with others before taking action. Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion. Sorry it wasn't sooner, but better late than never, eh? Yes, and thanks for acknowledging this. Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email to me started out with Watch your tone. This is the intimidation stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit. Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to the list. :) Sorry. Its ok...we sometimes read into things deeper than we should. As I have told you on the side, and I will publicly state again...I meant nothing by this negatively. It was a cut and paste from the publicly available whois database, and assumed it was purely public...and I certainly did not know it was your address (I assumed it may have been an office or other), but in retrospect, I agree I shouldn't have done that and I apologized publicly for it. I attended for a total of about an hour. I am speaking from hearsay here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed? I was told by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting. This in-and-of-itself is the issue. Knowing Geir was in town, and especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a speaker pass for you at JavaOne,
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea, and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate. It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine. I hope that makes sense... Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing? Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand this sentiment. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea, and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate. It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine. I hope that makes sense... Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing? Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand this sentiment. Bruce, Perhaps I am not being very good at communicating...let me paste what I wrote before, and you can perhaps show me the error of my feelings... Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. The words I am trying to convey here are ethical, respect, and prudent. Being that we are all friends, I think we can abide by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. Would you agree? Jeff Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea, and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate. It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine. I hope that makes sense... Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing? Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand this sentiment. Bruce, Perhaps I am not being very good at communicating...let me paste what I wrote before, and you can perhaps show me the error of my feelings... Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. The words I am trying to convey here are ethical, respect, and prudent. Being that we are all friends, I think we can abide by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. Would you agree? Well I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. I don't care if my code is reused, twisted, refactored, deleted or otherwise. When I apply the Apache License to my code, I hope that others reuse it in some way. I actually do consider this reuse ethical and respectful. I take it as the highest complement that someone would reuse my code because it means that I saved them the trouble of reinventing the wheel. I think that it's our interpretations that differ. Are you simply looking for a tip of the hat type of thing or something more? Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Comment below... Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com. But out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea, and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate. It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine. I hope that makes sense... Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing? Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand this sentiment. Bruce, Perhaps I am not being very good at communicating...let me paste what I wrote before, and you can perhaps show me the error of my feelings... Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. The words I am trying to convey here are ethical, respect, and prudent. Being that we are all friends, I think we can abide by the spirit of the law, rather than the letter. Would you agree? Well I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. I don't care if my code is reused, twisted, refactored, deleted or otherwise. When I apply the Apache License to my code, I hope that others reuse it in some way. I actually do consider this reuse ethical and respectful. I take it as the highest complement that someone would reuse my code because it means that I saved them the trouble of reinventing the wheel. I think that it's our interpretations that differ. Are you simply looking for a tip of the hat type of thing or something more? No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? But... there was no work on the code. All I did was add configs/src/plan/geronimo-plugin.xml to the 4 directory-related configs (directory, ldap-realm, ldap-demo-jetty and ldap-demo-tomcat). And then put the CAR files on the plugin site so instead of requiring someone to manually locate the various module files and deployment plans and 20 prerequisite JARs and apply them all in the correct order, you can click through the console (or deploy tool) and it does the heavy lifting for you. I guess I fixed a bug in the POM too where ldap-realm didn't depend on directory, or something like that. Thanks, Aaron
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Okay, after reading the e-mails thus far ( I haven't read through all of them yet ) here are my responses inline. Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Aaron, Since you asked. First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread. I think that will help. Sure. Thanks. Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start. Here is a snip from whois of that domain. I removed the address specific information. Registrant: Address is provided *Removed* Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM Created on: 11-Apr-06 Expires on: 11-Apr-07 Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06 Administrative Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Technical Contact: Mulder, Erin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one, and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue). I've offered a number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and so far, no one's taken me up on it. My goals are to provide a Maven repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL, proprietary. Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious enoguh to provide one. And now you're jumping on her for it? That's gratitude! Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time. What is your counter-proposal? Create a zone at Apache that will service this concept. This would require talking to the infra team to do this. Perhaps this was already done and we didn't see the traffic on the dev list. If ther ewaw I apologize for the assertion. Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes. I was working to release 1.1 and you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release. I don't think that we agreed on how to handle JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since you were not releasing 1.1. Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira. I thought I was using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing to work on what. Including, of course, a todo list for myself. I honestly had no idea that as release manager, you considered Jira to be your domain, and didn't want people using without what -- your approval? By all means, if you object to something I do like that, please say something! Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's *definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks or whatever. I don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact. Fair enough that you hadn't considered JIRA as a release management tool. We3 never discussed it and perhaps from my perspective it seemed obvious. Teh point is you used it for your purposes without a prior e-mail to the community about your intentions. When you did move things back in I assumed a different strategy on how to manage the release. Your intent being declared prior to moving the JIRAs would have allowed the community to interact and decided on a common course. We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU wanted which may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced several times. I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives. Yes of course. I was explaining how I want to use an issue-tracking system. (Were your posts about how Jeff wants to use an issue tracking system?) I thought the point of the thread was for everyone to say what they're looking for so we can then decide the best way to do it as a group. Perhaps this was an unfair example. You used the terms I an I need so I took that to be more focused on your desires rather than community focused. If I mis-understood then I apologize. Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded members of the community. I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like. Given that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open as well. Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about so long as we were all together. I'm sorry that there's a perception of an exclusionary wall. It was on us to pay for the food, which at hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't able to invite the entire Geronimo community. I
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On Jun 8, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: I propose for 1.2 we drive it more by time than by features. That is, we lay out a schedule including builds every 2-3 weeks, initially milestone builds, becoming beta and RC builds. We try to get people to test and provide feedback on the builds as we go, and we expect that we'll have some issues early to mid-way through the process but have clear dates for feature freeze, no bugs fixes except blockers, branch for the next release, etc. We may have to adjust the schedule depending on what develops, but at least we'll know what we're targeting at all times. Then we'll have to huddle after the 1.2 release and decide whether this was an improvement over the 1.1 process or not, and decide how to go for 1.3/2.0. Sounds good. Can you put together a time table representation of this idea? It would help me understand the nuances. Thanks, -dain
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together, they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they can work together. Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my conversation to the list after the fact? I don't think that an all list requirement is appropriate. We have to allow for people having conversations that are not privy to everyone's consumption. However, where those discussion turn into a collusion about how the project should unfold then I think it has turned to an innapropriate level. I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from so many people about this topic. Please help me understand. Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have been involved in. Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred. Um... OK. I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was that big a deal. If it bothered you, I'm sorry. Let's talk about it. What do you recommend? The constraints I see are that is should be able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code. Do you agree? Disagree? What do you recommend for a hosting site? This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration. I find this extra-confusing. I took a piece of Geronimo which was hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or not as you please). And you feel that as the primary author of the code, you should have been consulted? That I'm somehow using your own hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a whole? I'm sorry for offending you. But I don't understand your objection. Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO. I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples, LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution. The Java 5 stack trace in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been working hard to slim down our distributions. I am pretty sure we agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while. But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is showing disrespect. We're all in this together, and it's not your code or my code, it's our code. I promise, if you make the console more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be offended, I'll buy you a beer. As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant discussion with others before taking action. Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion. Sorry it wasn't sooner, but better late than never, eh? Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email to me started out with Watch your tone. This is the intimidation stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit. Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to the list. :) Sorry. I attended for a total of about an hour. I am speaking from hearsay here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed? I was told by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting. This in-and-of-itself is the issue. Knowing Geir was in town, and especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event. JavaOne is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings (positive or negative) about each other. For those who could not attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged. This should have been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed not everyone was there. We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and Geronimo. We all should have the opportunity to engage as well. I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not invited, Geir and others. True, it would have been smart to arrange a dial-in. Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be overlooked either. If the outcome of this is that no one should have a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that (but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable). I talked to another committer at a different conference recently, and we brainstormed some ideas for improving the product. Was that wrong? Where's the line? Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't? I think two or 50 is fine. The issue was that some people wanted to
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins as the default option. I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one. Let's be consistent in our interpretations. Jeff Genender wrote: Bruce Snyder wrote: On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No Bruce, thats not it at all. Its simply discussing what he was going to do. This all comes back to the lack of communication issue. So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list explaining the work he was doing on the code? I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. Lets go back to your statement that we can agree to disagree...we are beating a dead horse here... Bruce
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the Notes from JavaOne [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like oh, it was a vendor meeting or meeting friends or We just left out just one person or Oh, There was a BOF or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By bring the community together, hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114807250831613w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11484081113r=1w=2 thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together, they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they can work together. Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my conversation to the list after the fact? I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from so many people about this topic. Please help me understand. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Dims, Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful message. (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago? I don't know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today. What's the message?) You in your e-mail right here have said what you though went wrong and how you think it could be corrected in the future. One of my biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair is that they have done neither. In conversation with the PMC chair I practically begged him to tell me I had done something wrong WRT the JavaOne meeting and what should be done differently next time. He declined. I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any kind that he thought needed to be changed. He declined. I think the message you provided below If I had known about the meeting I would have done this... What Apache projects usually do is this... All it would have taken was this... was extremely useful. Please, please encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the Notes from JavaOne [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like oh, it was a vendor meeting or meeting friends or We just left out just one person or Oh, There was a BOF or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By bring the community together, hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114807250831613w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11484081113r=1w=2 thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together, they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they can work together. Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my conversation to the list after the fact? I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from so many people about this topic. Please help me understand. Bruce -- perl -e 'print unpack(u30,D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]5R\F)R=6-E+G-N61ED\!G;6%I;\YC;VT* );' Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ Castor - http://castor.org/ -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds good. Can you put together a time table representation of this idea? It would help me understand the nuances. Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2: June 12: 1.1 released - select release manager for 1.2 - set goals for 1.2 July 1: 1.2-M1 released July 21: 1.2-M2 released August 14: 1.2-beta1 released Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2 Oct 1: release 1.2 Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release. And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1 then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan. What do you think? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Alan, Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all issues into the open and use this opportunity to vent, clear our heads and hopefully help put our best foot forward from now on. thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a private email so that I have things clear in my head. If you think that it's useful to post to the dev group, that's cool. You have my permission to forward this email on to whomever you'd like. Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 6/9/2006 3:03 PM: Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. How was Aaron's email [1] not a notification? Is there a better way to provide notes on what one talked about at a conference? If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the Notes from JavaOne [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. You still have time to discuss. What in [1] made you think that the notes were carved in stone? Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. Yep. That was a not too good. But people can still discuss things even afterward, no? People who have these private meetings run the risk of having to discuss the round if issues a second time if they are not inclusive. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like oh, it was a vendor meeting or meeting friends or We just left out just one person or Oh, There was a BOF or a thousand other excuses don't count. I think that what you see are individuals' interpretation of what the get-together was for themselves. If everyone had the *exact* same story line then, that would have been truly suspicious. I gotta say. I'm kinda scratching my head about this. I was at the meeting for the last few minutes but was an active participant in its formation and I think that it was handled ok, not great, but ok. Nothing was decided and things were reported back to the group. Now, compare this to the plugins.com where actual code started going in and I got grief from fellow PMCers for even pointing it out. I learned that this came about from a discussion at TSS and it was never publically reported to anyone. This is what everyone should be craping their pants about. Bringing the two, to be sure there are others, together points out that Geronimo is in serious trouble. Pointing out that single J1 meeting makes it seem kinda shrill. Thoughts? All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By bring the community together, hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it +1 [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114807250831613w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11484081113r=1w=2 I am not disagreeing that Geronimo is in serious trouble. I totally agree with you. Regards, Alan -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
3.5 months for the planned cycle seems a bit two long especially when you think it would be reasonable to bump it for something important. I personally would like to see 2 months planned, so if it runs long we are closer to 3 months instead of 4. -dain On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote: On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sounds good. Can you put together a time table representation of this idea? It would help me understand the nuances. Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2: June 12: 1.1 released - select release manager for 1.2 - set goals for 1.2 July 1: 1.2-M1 released July 21: 1.2-M2 released August 14: 1.2-beta1 released Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2 Oct 1: release 1.2 Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release. And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1 then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan. What do you think? Thanks, Aaron
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Great email from Alan. Alan, feel free to share these feelings with the group. I am inspired that you have similar thoughts as many of us (not that I ever even questioned that ;-) ]. Thanks. Jeff Davanum Srinivas wrote: Alan, Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all issues into the open and use this opportunity to vent, clear our heads and hopefully help put our best foot forward from now on. thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a private email so that I have things clear in my head. If you think that it's useful to post to the dev group, that's cool. You have my permission to forward this email on to whomever you'd like. Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 6/9/2006 3:03 PM: Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. How was Aaron's email [1] not a notification? Is there a better way to provide notes on what one talked about at a conference? If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the Notes from JavaOne [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. You still have time to discuss. What in [1] made you think that the notes were carved in stone? Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. Yep. That was a not too good. But people can still discuss things even afterward, no? People who have these private meetings run the risk of having to discuss the round if issues a second time if they are not inclusive. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like oh, it was a vendor meeting or meeting friends or We just left out just one person or Oh, There was a BOF or a thousand other excuses don't count. I think that what you see are individuals' interpretation of what the get-together was for themselves. If everyone had the *exact* same story line then, that would have been truly suspicious. I gotta say. I'm kinda scratching my head about this. I was at the meeting for the last few minutes but was an active participant in its formation and I think that it was handled ok, not great, but ok. Nothing was decided and things were reported back to the group. Now, compare this to the plugins.com where actual code started going in and I got grief from fellow PMCers for even pointing it out. I learned that this came about from a discussion at TSS and it was never publically reported to anyone. This is what everyone should be craping their pants about. Bringing the two, to be sure there are others, together points out that Geronimo is in serious trouble. Pointing out that single J1 meeting makes it seem kinda shrill. Thoughts? All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By bring the community together, hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it +1 [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114807250831613w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11484081113r=1w=2 I am not disagreeing that Geronimo is in serious trouble. I totally agree with you. Regards, Alan
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Please see below: On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alan, Forwarding to dev with your permission. Let's just bring all issues into the open and use this opportunity to vent, clear our heads and hopefully help put our best foot forward from now on. thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Alan D. Cabrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is a private email so that I have things clear in my head. If you think that it's useful to post to the dev group, that's cool. You have my permission to forward this email on to whomever you'd like. Davanum Srinivas wrote, On 6/9/2006 3:03 PM: Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. How was Aaron's email [1] not a notification? Is there a better way to provide notes on what one talked about at a conference? Absolutely. Since this is after the fact. there is no other way to inform. I was talking about what needs to be done *before* a F2F. If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the Notes from JavaOne [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. You still have time to discuss. What in [1] made you think that the notes were carved in stone? Yep. Again after the fact. Yes, we had some discussions on axis-dev which i posted. I am still waiting to hear on how other things alluded to in the Notes email are going to weigh in (XFire/Celtix). Specifically interested in how they are planning to implement JAXRPC (the old spec) and rpc/encoded support and saaj and other things that J2EE spec mandates. Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. Yep. That was a not too good. But people can still discuss things even afterward, no? People who have these private meetings run the risk of having to discuss the round if issues a second time if they are not inclusive. Again. After the fact, yes. Was trying to show how being inclusive will help make the F2F better with a real not made up example. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like oh, it was a vendor meeting or meeting friends or We just left out just one person or Oh, There was a BOF or a thousand other excuses don't count. I think that what you see are individuals' interpretation of what the get-together was for themselves. If everyone had the *exact* same story line then, that would have been truly suspicious. My feeling is that people are trying to say whatever they can to see if it will stick. So far nothing has. My favorite though is Oh! we did not take a decision!!! :) I gotta say. I'm kinda scratching my head about this. I was at the meeting for the last few minutes but was an active participant in its formation and I think that it was handled ok, not great, but ok. Nothing was decided and things were reported back to the group. Now, compare this to the plugins.com where actual code started going in and I got grief from fellow PMCers for even pointing it out. I learned that this came about from a discussion at TSS and it was never publically reported to anyone. This is what everyone should be craping their pants about. This was clearly wrong. and the RTC was probably for such behavior. Bringing the two, to be sure there are others, together points out that Geronimo is in serious trouble. Pointing out that single J1 meeting makes it seem kinda shrill. As i mentioned to you before. The meeting was the last straw IMHO Thoughts? All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By bring the community together, hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it +1 [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114807250831613w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11484081113r=1w=2 I am not disagreeing that Geronimo is in
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Aaron, The info was available publicly more than a week ago (If one know what to look for..): http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrevision=411036 I presume that the expectation of the board and the pmc chair is for us to figure out things for ourselves. If we expect someone to lay down the rules either we will protest on the language or throw hands up in the air over tiny language tweaks or figure out a way to stay true to the word but not the intent of the policy. (think what we did as teenagers :) SO...we need to learn to fish and not expect a fish to be given to us. That way next time a situation arises, we know exactly what to do and what not to do. BTW, Am really glad we are talking in public about our folly/foible(s). This is an absolute first step towards making things better. thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dims, Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful message. (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago? I don't know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today. What's the message?) You in your e-mail right here have said what you though went wrong and how you think it could be corrected in the future. One of my biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair is that they have done neither. In conversation with the PMC chair I practically begged him to tell me I had done something wrong WRT the JavaOne meeting and what should be done differently next time. He declined. I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any kind that he thought needed to be changed. He declined. I think the message you provided below If I had known about the meeting I would have done this... What Apache projects usually do is this... All it would have taken was this... was extremely useful. Please, please encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future. Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it isIt's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the Notes from JavaOne [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like oh, it was a vendor meeting or meeting friends or We just left out just one person or Oh, There was a BOF or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By bring the community together, hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-devm=114807250831613w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11484081113r=1w=2 thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it was. Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together, they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they can work together. Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Boy, you _are_ a little frustrated. I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No one can claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there. And it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're working toward are. I propose for 1.2 we drive it more by time than by features. That is, we lay out a schedule including builds every 2-3 weeks, initially milestone builds, becoming beta and RC builds. We try to get people to test and provide feedback on the builds as we go, and we expect that we'll have some issues early to mid-way through the process but have clear dates for feature freeze, no bugs fixes except blockers, branch for the next release, etc. We may have to adjust the schedule depending on what develops, but at least we'll know what we're targeting at all times. Then we'll have to huddle after the 1.2 release and decide whether this was an improvement over the 1.1 process or not, and decide how to go for 1.3/2.0. I ended up using the SuSE 10.1 betas and RC's during their dev/test/release process, and it went very much like the above (including at least one adjustment to the schedule in mid-stream). But it was nice to have a schedule laid out, to always be able to see the date the next test build was expected, etc. I'd like to give it a try. We may have to play things a little by ear in deciding how to deal with plugins and which releases we try to create in-place upgrades for (vs. fresh install only), but I think that's all manageable. Thanks, Aaron P.S. Maybe we'll get to see if the Chariot agenda is any better than the IBM agenda. :) On 6/8/06, Matt Hogstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I previously sent out an e-mail regarding the freezing of the branches/1.1 code so we can march to a release. I expect you could tell by the tone of the e-mail that I was very frustrated. My frustration arose from a private e-mail asking if IBM had some secret agenda and if that was the reason I was trying to move the release out. This really set me off. You will have to be the judge as to whether IBM yields any undue influence on the project; I believe the answer is no. From my perspective, IBM goes out of its way to make sure we do not force the community. We carefully consider how we interact in the community. not only about how we conduct ourselves but what the appearance of our actions might be perceived. Yes, we base a server offering on Geronimo and we do have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed; however, so do a number of other companies. It is always a challenge to balance contribution and influence to ensure your growing the ecosystem and I think we do a damn good job of it. IMHO we actually are too conservative. The reason I'm trying to move the release along is because it has been OVER FIVE MONTHS since we have given our users anything else to look at. Does anyone remember who they are? These are the developers who we're trying to create something for. Developers that will be interested in using our project. I don't know about you but in this fast paced world of development people don't sit around waiting for FIVE MONTHS for anything. They will choose something else and then you've lost them. You've broken their confidence on your ability to deliver and consequently they'll be less likely to believe you'll deliver when you say you will. I am not pushing the release because of some secret IBM agenda. I'm embarrassed that WE can't seem to deliver something. Originally we said end of January and then discovered that we had some refactoring to do. It will only take a few weeks we thought. Two months later (and stalled development on new innovation) we set a target date of April 28th. Yes, I chose the date but it was four weeks from the day I suggested it; we seemed to have consensus. Unfortunately we found that our changes (they were the right thing to do) caused us lots of heart burn in CTS testing. Few people were able to help with that for whatever reason so it was a long slow grind. We burned up April and then started into May. Java One was in there for a week so we basically lost two more weeks. Continuing to try and get a release out we've diagnosed performance problems, survived an SVN outage at Apache, a Codehaus outage, I've written numerous e-mails about getting 1.1 out and yet we are still not in lock step as to what we're trying to accomplish. In short, yes, I am frustrated not because some secret IBM plan is not coming to fruition but because the community, of which I am apart, is dysfunctional to the point of laughability. We are now under Review and Commit. We're not doing well there either but that is likely a separate thread for discussion. I know we're a volunteer organization but I hope that being part of a project makes us a team. If we cannot begin to operate like a team its going to be a slow painful process. So, to answer the question about why
