Re: Let's do better

[Matthew Broadhead]

i don't even know what argument this discussion relates to but my 2 
cents are that email and text are a terrible medium for long term 
communication and people should regularly have face to face discussions 
on hangouts or similar.   it is easy to read between the lines of text 
communications and perceive insults that were never intended.  i also 
agree it is good to have things out in the open rather than festering 
below the surface


On 13/02/2018 11:33, Andy Gumbrecht wrote:
Totally agree with you Mark. My initial response was polite as usual, 
I acknowledged my mistake and reverted quickly and explained my 
intention. Then comes the all too familiar b... slap, another one - 
Jean-Louis response is the best one, but that also can misfire - "What 
are you 'f'ing doing with my car?", will instantly change the tone and 
you end up resenting the fact you even considered washing it. My 
problem is I never slap first, but I really don't respond well when I 
get one - It's the old soldier in me I guess.


I take the premise, you're standing in a bar. I'm an extremely happy 
drinker, but don't ask me "What you lookin at?" or spill my beer - In 
fact, if you do, my first response is "Excuse me?" (Diplomacy), it's 
the "I said, what are you looking at?" that tips the balance for me. I 
make an equal effort to be courteous and not spill anyone else's beer 
in a bar. If I keep getting my beer spilt then as Mark points out, 
find another pub. Only one choice for me, as I really don't want to 
fight. That doesn't mean I can't.


Andy.


On 13/02/18 10:25, Mark Struberg wrote:
It's our duty as PMC members to review committs. And of course a 
commit with the comment 'starting a thing which was decided not to be 
done' should spark EVERYONES curiosity.


All the PMC members at TomEE and Geronimo have been aware of the 
discussions and nobody said anything against putting the reusable 
parts at Geronimo. Au contraire it was widely agreed. Both the 
Geronimo PMC and also the TomEE PMC have been discussing this for 
months.


Romain and I spent lots of time to find a viable compromise which is 
in the best interest of the broader communities. This included the 
option of moving the existing Geronimo parts to TomEE. Actually 
whether those parts are hosted at TomEE or Geronimo is really a minor 
point. After all the _active_ people are the same in both projects 
anyway.


Andy made his intent clear now, I applogized. And I don't feel bad 
for it. Because it was very important to clarify the situation.


LieGrue,
strub


Am 13.02.2018 um 09:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro 
:


Morning Mark,

I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.

Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either 
the test

or the code)
Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.

This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the 
community
to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, 
instead of
pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are 
in the

same position.

I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.

I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor 
not

getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
questions.
"My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
"What do you plan to do with them?"

I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the 
daughter and

her father.

You are a father, so am I.

Hope it helps.



--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 


wrote:


Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.

LieGrue,
strub



Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <

jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking 
would take

all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.

Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
écrit :


+1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping

from

the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender

theoreme

anyone?).
And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the 
reality and

thus prone to be misinterpreted.

The important part here is that those clashes bring up some 
difference

in

view.
And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or 
childish.

We

are all just passionate.
So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.

For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which 
already got

done in other ASF projects.
And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE 
Application

Server but to be reusable for other projects.
Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and 
not

about the TomEE project as governance body.

I also had an important lesson in the 90s:

If you have a problem
1.) solve it
2.) if you cannot solve it, live with 

Re: Let's do better

[Andy Gumbrecht]

Totally agree with you Mark. My initial response was polite as usual, I 
acknowledged my mistake and reverted quickly and explained my intention. 
Then comes the all too familiar b... slap, another one - Jean-Louis 
response is the best one, but that also can misfire - "What are you 
'f'ing doing with my car?", will instantly change the tone and you end 
up resenting the fact you even considered washing it. My problem is I 
never slap first, but I really don't respond well when I get one - It's 
the old soldier in me I guess.


I take the premise, you're standing in a bar. I'm an extremely happy 
drinker, but don't ask me "What you lookin at?" or spill my beer - In 
fact, if you do, my first response is "Excuse me?" (Diplomacy), it's the 
"I said, what are you looking at?" that tips the balance for me. I make 
an equal effort to be courteous and not spill anyone else's beer in a 
bar. If I keep getting my beer spilt then as Mark points out, find 
another pub. Only one choice for me, as I really don't want to fight. 
That doesn't mean I can't.


Andy.


On 13/02/18 10:25, Mark Struberg wrote:

It's our duty as PMC members to review committs. And of course a commit with 
the comment 'starting a thing which was decided not to be done' should spark 
EVERYONES curiosity.

All the PMC members at TomEE and Geronimo have been aware of the discussions 
and nobody said anything against putting the reusable parts at Geronimo. Au 
contraire it was widely agreed. Both the Geronimo PMC and also the TomEE PMC 
have been discussing this for months.

Romain and I spent lots of time to find a viable compromise which is in the 
best interest of the broader communities. This included the option of moving 
the existing Geronimo parts to TomEE. Actually whether those parts are hosted 
at TomEE or Geronimo is really a minor point. After all the _active_ people are 
the same in both projects anyway.

Andy made his intent clear now, I applogized. And I don't feel bad for it. 
Because it was very important to clarify the situation.

LieGrue,
strub



Am 13.02.2018 um 09:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :

Morning Mark,

I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.

Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either the test
or the code)
Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.

This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the community
to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, instead of
pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are in the
same position.

I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.

I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor not
getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
questions.
"My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
"What do you plan to do with them?"

I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the daughter and
her father.

You are a father, so am I.

Hope it helps.



--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:


Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.

LieGrue,
strub



Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <

jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:

Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.

Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
écrit :


+1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping

from

the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender

theoreme

anyone?).
And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
thus prone to be misinterpreted.

The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference

in

view.
And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish.

We

are all just passionate.
So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.

For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
done in other ASF projects.
And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
Server but to be reusable for other projects.
Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
about the TomEE project as governance body.

I also had an important lesson in the 90s:

If you have a problem
1.) solve it
2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.

More generally:
There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.

In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
It was simply a misunderstanding.
Andy wanted to commit samples and 

Re: Let's do better

[Mark Struberg]

It's our duty as PMC members to review committs. And of course a commit with 
the comment 'starting a thing which was decided not to be done' should spark 
EVERYONES curiosity.

All the PMC members at TomEE and Geronimo have been aware of the discussions 
and nobody said anything against putting the reusable parts at Geronimo. Au 
contraire it was widely agreed. Both the Geronimo PMC and also the TomEE PMC 
have been discussing this for months.

Romain and I spent lots of time to find a viable compromise which is in the 
best interest of the broader communities. This included the option of moving 
the existing Geronimo parts to TomEE. Actually whether those parts are hosted 
at TomEE or Geronimo is really a minor point. After all the _active_ people are 
the same in both projects anyway.

Andy made his intent clear now, I applogized. And I don't feel bad for it. 
Because it was very important to clarify the situation. 

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.02.2018 um 09:52 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
> Morning Mark,
> 
> I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.
> 
> Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either the test
> or the code)
> Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.
> 
> This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the community
> to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, instead of
> pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are in the
> same position.
> 
> I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.
> 
> I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor not
> getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
> questions.
> "My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
> "What do you plan to do with them?"
> 
> I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the daughter and
> her father.
> 
> You are a father, so am I.
> 
> Hope it helps.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> http://www.tomitribe.com
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 
> wrote:
> 
>> Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>> 
>>> Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
>> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
>>> 
>>> Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
>>> all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.
>>> 
>>> Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
>>> écrit :
>>> 
 +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping
>> from
 the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender
>> theoreme
 anyone?).
 And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
 thus prone to be misinterpreted.
 
 The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference
>> in
 view.
 And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish.
>> We
 are all just passionate.
 So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
 
 For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
 done in other ASF projects.
 And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
 Server but to be reusable for other projects.
 Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
 about the TomEE project as governance body.
 
 I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
 
 If you have a problem
 1.) solve it
 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
 
 More generally:
 There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
 There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
 we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
 And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
 compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
 
 In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
 It was simply a misunderstanding.
 Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
 This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
 easy to get misinterpreted.
 And that's exactly what happens.
 
 That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she
>> snatches
 your keys.
 You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out
>> that
 she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
 
 And now back to work pretty please ;)
 
 LieGrue,
 strub
 
> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
> 
> All,
> 
> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
 the
> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
 there
> thousands of 

Re: Let's do better

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Morning Mark,

I appreciate the feedback, but I disagree.

Adding an @Ignore on a test failing does not fix the issue (either the test
or the code)
Putting a napkin over some c... does not clean it up.

This is not the first time it happens, so I'd rather prefer the community
to vent, put the problems on the table so we can tackle them, instead of
pretending the problem is solved and in one month from now, we are in the
same position.

I do not plan to put fuel on the fire.

I'm suggesting that instead of shooting at the daughter and therefor not
getting any chance to know it was a present, one should first ask
questions.
"My sweet heart, why do you have the keys of the car?"
"What do you plan to do with them?"

I was trying to add some guidance to your good example of the daughter and
her father.

You are a father, so am I.

Hope it helps.



--
Jean-Louis Monteiro
http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
http://www.tomitribe.com

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 9:05 AM, Mark Struberg 
wrote:

> Please all stop putting fuel into the fire.
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
>
> > Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro <
> jlmonte...@tomitribe.com>:
> >
> > Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
> > all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.
> >
> > Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
> > écrit :
> >
> >> +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping
> from
> >> the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender
> theoreme
> >> anyone?).
> >> And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
> >> thus prone to be misinterpreted.
> >>
> >> The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference
> in
> >> view.
> >> And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish.
> We
> >> are all just passionate.
> >> So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
> >>
> >> For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
> >> done in other ASF projects.
> >> And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
> >> Server but to be reusable for other projects.
> >> Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
> >> about the TomEE project as governance body.
> >>
> >> I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
> >>
> >> If you have a problem
> >> 1.) solve it
> >> 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
> >> 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
> >>
> >> More generally:
> >> There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
> >> There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
> >> we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
> >> And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
> >> compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
> >>
> >> In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
> >> It was simply a misunderstanding.
> >> Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
> >> This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
> >> easy to get misinterpreted.
> >> And that's exactly what happens.
> >>
> >> That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she
> snatches
> >> your keys.
> >> You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out
> that
> >> she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
> >>
> >> And now back to work pretty please ;)
> >>
> >> LieGrue,
> >> strub
> >>
> >>> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
> >>>
> >>> All,
> >>>
> >>> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
> >> the
> >>> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
> >> there
> >>> thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
> >>> situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".
> >>>
> >>> As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
> >>> hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I
> use
> >> as
> >>> an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what
> >> we
> >>> think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
> >>> others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your
> perception
> >>> of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
> >>> "incidents".
> >>>
> >>> That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting,
> like
> >> in
> >>> this case, about backed out code but it's usually something
> >> inter-personal.
> >>> What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
> >>> Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such,
> >> as
> >>> I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or
> over
> >>> code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
> >>> face-to-face to 

Re: Let's do better

[Mark Struberg]

Please all stop putting fuel into the fire. 

LieGrue,
strub


> Am 13.02.2018 um 08:48 schrieb Jean-Louis Monteiro :
> 
> Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
> all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.
> 
> Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
> écrit :
> 
>> +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping from
>> the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender theoreme
>> anyone?).
>> And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
>> thus prone to be misinterpreted.
>> 
>> The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference in
>> view.
>> And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish. We
>> are all just passionate.
>> So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
>> 
>> For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
>> done in other ASF projects.
>> And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
>> Server but to be reusable for other projects.
>> Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
>> about the TomEE project as governance body.
>> 
>> I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
>> 
>> If you have a problem
>> 1.) solve it
>> 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
>> 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
>> 
>> More generally:
>> There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
>> There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
>> we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
>> And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
>> compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
>> 
>> In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
>> It was simply a misunderstanding.
>> Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
>> This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
>> easy to get misinterpreted.
>> And that's exactly what happens.
>> 
>> That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she snatches
>> your keys.
>> You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out that
>> she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
>> 
>> And now back to work pretty please ;)
>> 
>> LieGrue,
>> strub
>> 
>>> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
>> the
>>> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
>> there
>>> thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
>>> situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".
>>> 
>>> As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
>>> hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I use
>> as
>>> an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what
>> we
>>> think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
>>> others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your perception
>>> of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
>>> "incidents".
>>> 
>>> That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting, like
>> in
>>> this case, about backed out code but it's usually something
>> inter-personal.
>>> What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
>>> Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such,
>> as
>>> I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or over
>>> code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
>>> face-to-face to nail down what really drives you crazy.
>>> 
>>> What I learned is that it doesn't quite help, neither from the
>> perspective
>>> of somebody that is involved, nor from the perspective of somebody who
>> is a
>>> leader to finger point or to call out individuals. In the end you turned
>>> this into a mess and thus you have to fix it TOGETHER. If necessary you
>>> could even pull in a coach from outside. I for myself applied for a coach
>>> back in 2015. It's not a silver bullet and does not fix everything you
>>> screwed up in the past but it sometimes helps to have somebody with a
>>> neutral view and another opinion.
>>> 
>>> In the end my perception of reality on my little island is that you all
>>> bond a very strong team. I saw and worked with teams that were no real
>> team
>>> in the end. In your case I don't have such a perception and thus I
>> believe
>>> that you get this sorted out in a sustainable manner. Take it as a growth
>>> opportunity!
>>> 
>>> Cheers
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:33 AM, David Blevins 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
 Ok, community, we have to have another quick talk and then hopefully we
 can go back to being awesome.
 

Re: Let's do better

[Jean-Louis Monteiro]

Instead of shooting to someone or start arguing. Simply asking would take
all misunderstand off and avoid this disgusting mess.

Le 13 févr. 2018 08:33, "Mark Struberg"  a
écrit :

> +1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping from
> the reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender theoreme
> anyone?).
> And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and
> thus prone to be misinterpreted.
>
> The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference in
> view.
> And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish. We
> are all just passionate.
> So the first very important step is to identify the pain point.
>
> For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got
> done in other ASF projects.
> And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application
> Server but to be reusable for other projects.
> Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not
> about the TomEE project as governance body.
>
> I also had an important lesson in the 90s:
>
> If you have a problem
> 1.) solve it
> 2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
> 3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.
>
> More generally:
> There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone.
> There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but
> we would also perfectly accept a compromise.
> And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a
> compromise. Or where we would simply stop being part of it.
>
> In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits.
> It was simply a misunderstanding.
> Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
> This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very
> easy to get misinterpreted.
> And that's exactly what happens.
>
> That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she snatches
> your keys.
> You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out that
> she only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...
>
> And now back to work pretty please ;)
>
> LieGrue,
> strub
>
> > Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in
> the
> > past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been
> there
> > thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
> > situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".
> >
> > As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
> > hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I use
> as
> > an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what
> we
> > think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
> > others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your perception
> > of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
> > "incidents".
> >
> > That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting, like
> in
> > this case, about backed out code but it's usually something
> inter-personal.
> > What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
> > Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such,
> as
> > I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or over
> > code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
> > face-to-face to nail down what really drives you crazy.
> >
> > What I learned is that it doesn't quite help, neither from the
> perspective
> > of somebody that is involved, nor from the perspective of somebody who
> is a
> > leader to finger point or to call out individuals. In the end you turned
> > this into a mess and thus you have to fix it TOGETHER. If necessary you
> > could even pull in a coach from outside. I for myself applied for a coach
> > back in 2015. It's not a silver bullet and does not fix everything you
> > screwed up in the past but it sometimes helps to have somebody with a
> > neutral view and another opinion.
> >
> > In the end my perception of reality on my little island is that you all
> > bond a very strong team. I saw and worked with teams that were no real
> team
> > in the end. In your case I don't have such a perception and thus I
> believe
> > that you get this sorted out in a sustainable manner. Take it as a growth
> > opportunity!
> >
> > Cheers
> > Daniel
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:33 AM, David Blevins 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ok, community, we have to have another quick talk and then hopefully we
> >> can go back to being awesome.
> >>
> >> This thread got very negative and bares a striking resemblance to the
> >> "Suffocating Development Environment" thread from the June 27th
> incident.
> >> Yes, I've written about it enough times in the board reports that I have
> >> 

Re: Let's do better

[Mark Struberg]

+1  words - and especially brief once as emails - are just a mapping from the 
reality to some 'transport mechanism' (Claude Shannon sender theoreme anyone?).
And of course each 'map' is a huge simplification from the reality and thus 
prone to be misinterpreted.

The important part here is that those clashes bring up some difference in view. 
And yes, I also think this has nothing to do with immature or childish. We are 
all just passionate.
So the first very important step is to identify the pain point. 

For Romain and me, etc is to avoid duplication of work which already got done 
in other ASF projects.
And to not have those modules hardcoded bound to the TomEE Application Server 
but to be reusable for other projects. 
Please note that I'm talking about the Appliation Server only and not about the 
TomEE project as governance body.

I also had an important lesson in the 90s:

If you have a problem
1.) solve it
2.) if you cannot solve it, live with it
3.) if you cannot live with it, leave it.

More generally:
There are some points which totally doesn't matter to someone. 
There are other points which we would love to see a certain outcome, but we 
would also perfectly accept a compromise.
And is also a category of points where we simply cannot live with a compromise. 
Or where we would simply stop being part of it.

In the current situation it's pretty easy. NONE of the cases fits. 
It was simply a misunderstanding. 
Andy wanted to commit samples and integrate mp-config to TomEE.
This is perfectly fine, but the commit comment and the location was very easy 
to get misinterpreted.
And that's exactly what happens. 

That's like you forbid your daughter to use your car and then she snatches your 
keys.
You shout at her, but only after she bursts out in tears you find out that she 
only wanted to wash your car as a birthday present...

And now back to work pretty please ;)

LieGrue,
strub

> Am 13.02.2018 um 07:38 schrieb dsh :
> 
> All,
> 
> I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in the
> past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been there
> thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
> situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".
> 
> As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
> hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I use as
> an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what we
> think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
> others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your perception
> of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
> "incidents".
> 
> That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting, like in
> this case, about backed out code but it's usually something inter-personal.
> What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
> Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such, as
> I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or over
> code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
> face-to-face to nail down what really drives you crazy.
> 
> What I learned is that it doesn't quite help, neither from the perspective
> of somebody that is involved, nor from the perspective of somebody who is a
> leader to finger point or to call out individuals. In the end you turned
> this into a mess and thus you have to fix it TOGETHER. If necessary you
> could even pull in a coach from outside. I for myself applied for a coach
> back in 2015. It's not a silver bullet and does not fix everything you
> screwed up in the past but it sometimes helps to have somebody with a
> neutral view and another opinion.
> 
> In the end my perception of reality on my little island is that you all
> bond a very strong team. I saw and worked with teams that were no real team
> in the end. In your case I don't have such a perception and thus I believe
> that you get this sorted out in a sustainable manner. Take it as a growth
> opportunity!
> 
> Cheers
> Daniel
> 
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:33 AM, David Blevins 
> wrote:
> 
>> Ok, community, we have to have another quick talk and then hopefully we
>> can go back to being awesome.
>> 
>> This thread got very negative and bares a striking resemblance to the
>> "Suffocating Development Environment" thread from the June 27th incident.
>> Yes, I've written about it enough times in the board reports that I have
>> the date memorized.  What I've written is mostly positive and been praised
>> by the board for our handling of a hard situation.  You're all making a
>> liar out of me. :)
>> 
>> I was delicate in the first situation, but now I have to be a bit more
>> direct.
>> 
>> 
>> In the June 27th incident we had Andy committing code, Romain reverting
>> it, the two exchanging insults for one hour till Andy 

Re: Let's do better

[dsh]

All,

I followed what David calls "incidents" or "childish" quite closely in the
past. Why? Cause such situations are quite familiar to me. I've been there
thousands of times and what I can tell for granted is that non of these
situations are neither "incidents" nor "childish".

As a matter of fact each individual has a certain believe system on one
hand and on the other hand lives on his/her own island. The latter I use as
an explanation for the fact that we all have our own perception of what we
think reality is and it usually isn't congruent with the perception of
others. If either your believe systems are conflicting or your perception
of what you think is reality are clashing, you usually have such
"incidents".

That said I learned the hard way that usually you are not fighting, like in
this case, about backed out code but it's usually something inter-personal.
What makes me wondering especially if I think about all the Twitter and
Facebook posts where I see you guys hanging out together is, that such, as
I suspect it inter-personal conflicts, erupt on the mailing list or over
code commits, where my naive understanding is, that you could talk
face-to-face to nail down what really drives you crazy.

What I learned is that it doesn't quite help, neither from the perspective
of somebody that is involved, nor from the perspective of somebody who is a
leader to finger point or to call out individuals. In the end you turned
this into a mess and thus you have to fix it TOGETHER. If necessary you
could even pull in a coach from outside. I for myself applied for a coach
back in 2015. It's not a silver bullet and does not fix everything you
screwed up in the past but it sometimes helps to have somebody with a
neutral view and another opinion.

In the end my perception of reality on my little island is that you all
bond a very strong team. I saw and worked with teams that were no real team
in the end. In your case I don't have such a perception and thus I believe
that you get this sorted out in a sustainable manner. Take it as a growth
opportunity!

Cheers
Daniel

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 6:33 AM, David Blevins 
wrote:

> Ok, community, we have to have another quick talk and then hopefully we
> can go back to being awesome.
>
> This thread got very negative and bares a striking resemblance to the
> "Suffocating Development Environment" thread from the June 27th incident.
> Yes, I've written about it enough times in the board reports that I have
> the date memorized.  What I've written is mostly positive and been praised
> by the board for our handling of a hard situation.  You're all making a
> liar out of me. :)
>
> I was delicate in the first situation, but now I have to be a bit more
> direct.
>
>
> In the June 27th incident we had Andy committing code, Romain reverting
> it, the two exchanging insults for one hour till Andy quit complaining that
> he's working in his spare time implies Romain is killing the project.  Mark
> joins attempting to take some heat off of Romain.  Jon joins attempting to
> be as neutral as possible.  In the end both Mark and Jon apologize.  Andy's
> code stays reverted.
>
> In this incident Andy committed code. Mark and Romain begin arguing.
> Insults are exchanged for one hour till Andy quits complaining that he's
> working in his spare time and implies Romain is killing the project.  Jon
> joins attempting to be as neutral as possible.  In the end both Mark and
> Jon apologize.  Andy's code stays reverted.  This time it's all Tomitribe's
> fault.
>
>
> Am I the only one to notice a pattern?  That pattern is not one person's
> fault.  The pattern is we are behaving like children.
>
>
> This will not get better if each of us is expecting the other guy to
> change.  If your only response to this email is find flaws in others, I
> guarantee nothing will get better.
>
> Mark, you got there in the end which is great.  You pointed out something
> you could have done better and something Andy could do better.  That's the
> right pattern.  People are much more willing to accept feedback when they
> see you're also willing to accept it.
>
> We need to get there sooner next time and we need more than one person
> doing it.
>
>
> So with all that said, how do we turn this into an awesome learning
> experience that makes us stronger?
>
>
>
> -David
>
>
>
> > On Feb 12, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Andy Gumbrecht 
> wrote:
> >
> > Added project stubs: https://github.com/apache/
> tomee/tree/master/microprofile
> >
> > Andy.
> >
> >
> > On 05/02/18 11:17, Jean-Louis Monteiro wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Ok thanks guys.
> >> @Rudy, you are most welcome :)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jean-Louis Monteiro
> >> http://twitter.com/jlouismonteiro
> >> http://www.tomitribe.com
> >>
> >> On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Rudy De Busscher <
> rdebussc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think it is a very important spec, also for non-microprofile
> >>> implementations as it