Re: [Samba] Re: [proposal] Samba Software Foundation
On Wed, 15 Dec 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Gémes Géza wrote: Charles N Wyble írta: i like it. i like it a lot. sounds wonderful. lets get this going. the time is NOW to kill exchange. -charles http://www.thewybles.com/~charles www.oserproject.org Yes it realy sounds wonderful, and the basic idea probably is, but I dislike the reiteration of personal tastes, and dislikes. Imposing if xy would say something negative about me I'll take my ball with me and won't play again with you until you would force him to leave IMHO sounds too childish in an OSS software organizations ruleset :-( Not only that, it is not clear that we need a change in structure given that: 1. Things seem to be working pretty well the current way, in any case, and 2. We have technical agreement among the people who are actually working on the code. The direction that samba4 has taken promises to bring us a big improvement in the correctness and flexibility of the code. Regards - Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]richardsharpe.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Re: [proposal] Samba Software Foundation
i like it. i like it a lot. sounds wonderful. lets get this going. the time is NOW to kill exchange. -charles http://www.thewybles.com/~charles www.oserproject.org Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: dear samba users and developers, i'd like to put to you a proposal for your respectful consideration: it is an idea that i believe has strategic merit for the open source community and OS users as a whole. these words are chosen carefully and the reasons will become apparent later: that i begin as an example. as you are no doubt aware, there have been some seriously damaging (but not obviously so) decisions made for which the parties involved, myself included, owe you quite a debt, because the down-side of those decisions has led, in my opinion, to significant delays in opening windows to a wider world. what i am proposing is the introduction of a Samba Software Foundation, which would be modelled on the well-known Apache Software Foundation's charter. to kick-start that process - to bring some incentive to carrying it forward, what i propose to do is: if the SSF is set up in line with the way i envisage here, i promise to assign all samba-related code that i have ever written _to_ the SSF - with some conditions that will be aimed at protecting YOU - the samba community - not me, as i will point out later. now, as you are no doubt aware, i believe the ASF charter to have the following key points: 1) that all contributors treat each other with mutual respect. 2) that all code contributed is DUAL copyrighted assigned: one copy is kept by the contributor, and one identical copy is kept by the ASF 3) that acceptance of contributions are judged on TECHNICAL merit. 4) voting and karma. note the contrast between 2) and what i propose to contribute, above: namely that i will assign _all_ my samba-related code to a newly formed SSF (without holding dual copyright myself). one of the key conditions on that happening as follows: that 3) above, for the Samba Software Foundation, would need to be: 3) that acceptance of contributions are considered for STRATEGIC as WELL as technical grounds. for example: if some code is dog-slow and therefore would normally be rejected on technical grounds, if it opens up some strategically important area, then despite its technical abominability, it would STILL go ahead and be included. ... and probably given a high priority for optimisation and/or replacement with a better solution, should some poor sucker turn out to be actually using it and suffering greatly, but having no other choice, they carry on regardless. you get the idea, i am sure. now, here comes the difficult bit for me - namely that i have to give you some reasons as to _why_ i am advocating the introduction of an SSF, because i have to write about matters that i have written about many times, initially because i was very very hurt by what happened, later because i was concerned that the things that happened to me would happen to other people, and later _still_ because i was concerned that the samba project, despite its progress in so many ways, has not, in my opinion, progressed in any _really_ new or innovative areas that make a significant difference to Open Source OS users. particularly business users who are still totally dependent on windows environments to do day-to-day activities, in constant fear of wrecking their career or business prospects not because of something they did but because of something they _didn't_ do and didn't _know_ could happen or didn't believe it would happen to them, today - a virus or a spyware attack. [you only have to look at the two or more open source exchange projects which have been initiated on sf.net in the past four years and have both stalled, and the fact that they are based on samba tng not samba 3, to recognise that samba's usefulness is seriously curtailed. and also the sf.net freedce project which has had DCOM development environment support since 2000, but no integration with NT security or _any_ version of samba, and so consequently is completely useless.] so i am going to outline, under each of the headings above (1, 2 and 3) what _has_ happened - briefly - and i think you will see very clearly that if the SSF _had_ been in place, history would be totally totally different. 1) that all contributors treat each other with mutual respect. for the people who know their samba history, it is an understatement for me to say that i do not need to say _anything_ more on this one. 2) that all code contributed is DUAL copyrighted assigned: one copy is kept by the contributor, and one identical copy is kept by the ASF this one _does_ need some background explanation. i began working on samba's nt domain code
[Samba] Re: [proposal] Samba Software Foundation
Charles N Wyble írta: i like it. i like it a lot. sounds wonderful. lets get this going. the time is NOW to kill exchange. -charles http://www.thewybles.com/~charles www.oserproject.org Yes it realy sounds wonderful, and the basic idea probably is, but I dislike the reiteration of personal tastes, and dislikes. Imposing if xy would say something negative about me I'll take my ball with me and won't play again with you until you would force him to leave IMHO sounds too childish in an OSS software organizations ruleset :-( Cheers, Geza Gemes Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: dear samba users and developers, i'd like to put to you a proposal for your respectful consideration: it is an idea that i believe has strategic merit for the open source community and OS users as a whole. these words are chosen carefully and the reasons will become apparent later: that i begin as an example. as you are no doubt aware, there have been some seriously damaging (but not obviously so) decisions made for which the parties involved, myself included, owe you quite a debt, because the down-side of those decisions has led, in my opinion, to significant delays in opening windows to a wider world. what i am proposing is the introduction of a Samba Software Foundation, which would be modelled on the well-known Apache Software Foundation's charter. to kick-start that process - to bring some incentive to carrying it forward, what i propose to do is: if the SSF is set up in line with the way i envisage here, i promise to assign all samba-related code that i have ever written _to_ the SSF - with some conditions that will be aimed at protecting YOU - the samba community - not me, as i will point out later. now, as you are no doubt aware, i believe the ASF charter to have the following key points: 1) that all contributors treat each other with mutual respect. 2) that all code contributed is DUAL copyrighted assigned: one copy is kept by the contributor, and one identical copy is kept by the ASF 3) that acceptance of contributions are judged on TECHNICAL merit. 4) voting and karma. note the contrast between 2) and what i propose to contribute, above: namely that i will assign _all_ my samba-related code to a newly formed SSF (without holding dual copyright myself). one of the key conditions on that happening as follows: that 3) above, for the Samba Software Foundation, would need to be: 3) that acceptance of contributions are considered for STRATEGIC as WELL as technical grounds. for example: if some code is dog-slow and therefore would normally be rejected on technical grounds, if it opens up some strategically important area, then despite its technical abominability, it would STILL go ahead and be included. ... and probably given a high priority for optimisation and/or replacement with a better solution, should some poor sucker turn out to be actually using it and suffering greatly, but having no other choice, they carry on regardless. you get the idea, i am sure. now, here comes the difficult bit for me - namely that i have to give you some reasons as to _why_ i am advocating the introduction of an SSF, because i have to write about matters that i have written about many times, initially because i was very very hurt by what happened, later because i was concerned that the things that happened to me would happen to other people, and later _still_ because i was concerned that the samba project, despite its progress in so many ways, has not, in my opinion, progressed in any _really_ new or innovative areas that make a significant difference to Open Source OS users. particularly business users who are still totally dependent on windows environments to do day-to-day activities, in constant fear of wrecking their career or business prospects not because of something they did but because of something they _didn't_ do and didn't _know_ could happen or didn't believe it would happen to them, today - a virus or a spyware attack. [you only have to look at the two or more open source exchange projects which have been initiated on sf.net in the past four years and have both stalled, and the fact that they are based on samba tng not samba 3, to recognise that samba's usefulness is seriously curtailed. and also the sf.net freedce project which has had DCOM development environment support since 2000, but no integration with NT security or _any_ version of samba, and so consequently is completely useless.] so i am going to outline, under each of the headings above (1, 2 and 3) what _has_ happened - briefly - and i think you will see very clearly that if the SSF _had_ been in place, history would be totally totally different. 1) that all contributors treat each other with mutual respect. for the people who know their samba history, it is an understatement for me to say that i do not need to say _anything_ more on this one. 2) that all code
RE: [Samba] Re: [proposal] Samba Software Foundation
Yes it realy sounds wonderful, and the basic idea probably is, but I dislike the reiteration of personal tastes, and dislikes. Imposing if xy would say something negative about me I'll take my ball with me and won't play again with you until you would force him to leave IMHO sounds too childish in an OSS software organizations ruleset :-( Cheers, Geza Gemes Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: I think the fact that the guy uses his full name says it all Regards, Sir Tiddlywinks Saturn Brigator Uranus Excelsior (yeh, I know it's childish but it made me laugh) -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: [proposal] Samba Software Foundation
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:18:56PM +1100, Geoff Scott wrote: Yes it realy sounds wonderful, and the basic idea probably is, but I dislike the reiteration of personal tastes, and dislikes. Imposing if xy would say something negative about me I'll take my ball with me and won't play again with you until you would force him to leave IMHO sounds too childish in an OSS software organizations ruleset :-( Cheers, Geza Gemes Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: I think the fact that the guy uses his full name says it all Now wait a minute... I know Luke personally. We're friends and I was invited to his wedding and all. He's not that bad. For that matter, I always go by Michael H in writing and E-Mail (H is for Harold and I really don't care for Harold all that much) but everyone knows me by just Mike. Luke is NOT stuck up or anything. He can be a real hoot to hang out with. He just uses his full name in writing. So what? Regards, Sir Tiddlywinks Saturn Brigator Uranus Excelsior This is the sort of thing that the team members (and, yes, I'm on the team) wanted to avoid. Luke, quite often, has very good points, and he is absolutely brilliant when it comes to many technical and conceptual issues, but discussions do tend to degenerate into ad-hominen attacks and emotional, personal, stuff, and get taken personally. The problems in the past were rooted in a lot of misunderstandings and misperceived slights, where none was intended. We (the team) wanted to keep things on a technical level and avoid some of the dredging of emotional issues of the past. We all basically like and respect Luke, we just don't want some of the old stuff raked over. Especially since it, invariably, ends up with people's feelings getting hurt, especially Luke's. Let's just let it lay and get off the off topic stuff and back to technical and samba stuff... (yeh, I know it's childish but it made me laugh) Mike -- Michael H. Warfield| (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471| possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it! pgpQMENZ7zVV1.pgp Description: PGP signature -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
