Re: Forming an opinion
Jon Stevens wrote: on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed. Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to stop. I changed my mind. How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on? Nah. You won that shit throwing match. -- Peace, Anil +:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
On 1/22/01 4:16 PM, "Geoff Soutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we protect the people that get offended? :-) Those who need to be protected shouldn't walk outside their front door. -- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
So, it seems that you have nothing against self defense. Right? Paulo -Original Message- From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 19:23 On 1/22/01 4:16 PM, "Geoff Soutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we protect the people that get offended? :-) Those who need to be protected shouldn't walk outside their front door. -- James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50 On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :) We all are and that was never the question. ... However, I personally think it would be a shame to muzzle somebody for anything less than harassment that is probably legally prosecutable. If somebody threatens personal harm, then that's definitely over the line. So far though, we've been lucky enough to not see "I'm going to drive right over to your house and kick your ass" being stated on the mailing lists. Then we have different opinions. I think harassment and other behaviors can be too destructive for a mailing list like this, way before you have to call the police. You _seem_ to think that while one as not to call the police everything is ok. Obviously, no one ever talked about calling the police here. Fortunately, we were always far from that. ... [a lot of stuff on the dial ins] ... You are missing/going around the point. Jon is fundamentally right about the dial in issue and after working to have them available it is just natural he is disappointed with the level of participation. Jon also made quite clear that the fears that there were not enough lines were not excuse because, if people were interested, they should try to make lists of intended participants and so on. One message that Jon passes trough quite well is that people should take initiative instead of complaining and I think he is fundamentally right. Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we did not do it. And I do _not_ intend to justify myself because it just isn't this list business. I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the core Apache team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a strong one. However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example. s/must/should/ -- there's no onus enforced to make people in an open source project hold themselves and their behavior up to some sort of standard other than the fact that if people don't like that person or group of people, they can always fork away or do something else with their life. We do have a set of rules that admittedly needing some work. Right now, those rules don't say anything about "Rules of Conduct". Until they do, there is no "must" there. IMHO, you are missing the point again. I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did). * However, some people reprehended me and not him. (And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.) So, the point is: * If some veterans wanted to stop this, they should have started by reprehending Jon or both. (That has to do to what I was calling "ruling by example".) Besides, since there are no limitations to opinions in this list, I think some of us are free to defend a minimum "standard" without having to fork away, just as you are free to defend what you are defending. Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop because I was replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was replying to me (as you wrote, it takes two!). So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got reprehended that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent. Actually, I don't think I reprehended either of you. All I did was defend him a bit. And if he had stated that he thought that you were out of line with your postings, I probably would have flamed him a bit for that... As far as other people reprehending you, well, that's their business. What I wrote does not have to do with your attitudes but with the questions you raise. Besides, Jon does not have to be defended from me. Not only because Jon is a productive veteran and I am a no one here (although a noisy one). Also because I respect his work and I already did learn a lot from him. I also do not have a problem agreeing with (and sometimes supporting) many of the things he proposes. Besides, I can see that currently there is no flame war going on with Jon on this list and he is doing very constructive work. To use an euphemism, let's say we just had a (big) problem about participation style. I wanted to see how far this could go. I get the feeling that we have people "playing chess" with this sort of thing. I'm not happy about that feeling. It was too primary to be called "playing chess". It was a reaction, almost a reflex. And it did happen because I was not happy about some of my feelings too. Have fun, Paulo
RE: Forming an opinion
If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him personally, is the appropriate thing to do. That is just what we did. IMHO, no one was asking for "official action". We made remarks about that issue of other veterans reprehending me and not Jon or both. But even this level of reprehension does not look that "official" to me either. Have fun, Paulo -Original Message- From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50 On 1/20/01 11:56 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's contributions to ASF or to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's great. But many posts from Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small bit of toning down would go a long way. I should have been more clear -- legally defined harassment. Threats to body or property come to mind. Stalking. Not being a lawyer I don't know what else the ASF could be considered to be liable for (and of course it depends on what a jury thinks), however in my opinion it has to be this serious for official action to be taken. After all, it seemed clear to me that the PMC's role was too narrowly defined to include "niceness overseers". If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the PMC's charter expanded, that's something that can be discussed. -- James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we did not do it. It doesn't matter why you didn't do it. It only matters that you didn't do it and didn't state why you didn't do it. Your insistence that no one should know your personal business is bullshit in a public forum where you are speaking your mind freely. If I wasn't able to make the meeting I would have stood up and told everyone why in clear details. I guess I expect the same level of professionalism from others concerning events as important as a PMC meeting that is a result of heated mailing list discussions. Maybe that is wrong. Note: I made every effort to get to that meeting, including getting to the office space 2 hours early in case there was traffic or something else that might have stopped me. It is all about *showing* that you are making an effort. If you don't show you make an effort, then the rest of what you say really ends up not carrying much weight. I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did). * However, some people reprehended me and not him. (And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.) There is a simple reason that comes from a very old saying: Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm wrong, then trying to show me that I'm wrong by also being wrong doesn't make you look right. I'm not saying that what I was doing was wrong, but I am saying that it was wrong of you to try to show me that I was wrong by being wrong. That is why other people were flaming you more than me. :-) :-) -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
James Duncan Davidson wrote: If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the PMC's charter expanded, that's something that can be discussed. Not that I'm revealing any big secret here but yes I do have a beef with Jon's behavior. From the begining he's been so instrumental in making me lose my interest in this project. I know I'm not the only one. This is such a weird case... no one else on the PMC or in this mailing list or anywhere else goes around saying the sorts of things Jon does. To reiterate I agree with the points Jon is trying to make, I like his attitude towards this and other projects but I can't stand and take personal insults from Jon either to me or other people. I don't know if the PMC's charter can be expanded to cover these sorts of behavioral issues. One would imagine that he would realize what exactly the issue is and fix it (its so easy anyway) but given that hasn't happened the least that you could do is look at exactly what people are trying to say and try to address that (in whatever way you feel right) instead of belaboring the fact that Jon is prolific and a great contributor. -- Peace, Anil +:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Hey Anil, I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after the fact. As a member of the PMC, you should have been there. Everyone else was and I don't think that attending the meeting was an optional thing. In fact, you attempted to dial in and then sent me email after having dropped off stating that you couldn't hear what people were saying...why didn't you just say something? We could have moved the mike closer to people as necessary. We didn't know. I'm tired of people who can't even bother to participate at the most important meeting attempting to censor or control me. That is bullshit. thanks, -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 19:39 on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we did not do it. ... Your insistence that no one should know your personal business is bullshit in a public forum where you are speaking your mind freely. If I wasn't able to make the meeting I would have stood up and told everyone why in clear details. I guess I expect the same level of professionalism from others concerning events as important as a PMC meeting that is a result of heated mailing list discussions. Maybe that is wrong. ... I think that principle is right. What is (IMO) wrong is to be judge and condemn people for not dialing in even before you know why. I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did). * However, some people reprehended me and not him. (And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.) There is a simple reason that comes from a very old saying: Two wrongs don't make a right. If I'm wrong, then trying to show me that I'm wrong by also being wrong doesn't make you look right. I'm not saying that what I was doing was wrong, but I am saying that it was wrong of you to try to show me that I was wrong by being wrong. That is why other people were flaming you more than me. :-) :-) hehehe You could be right about that being the reason! It is another way of considering the issue that makes some sense. =:o) -jon Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
Hey Jon, You attacked Anil's position, but you did not proof him wrong. What are you attacking? The ideas or the man? Your ideas often make sense. Often better than opposite ideas. IMO, what Anil, me and others dislike is that, instead of attacking the opposite ideas, you attack the people that defend them, one by one if necessary. That is why me and others understand faster other people that are defending just the same you do. What about starting to attack the opposite ideas instead of the men behind them? For sure it would be more efficient. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar -Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 22:08 Hey Anil, I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after the fact. As a member of the PMC, you should have been there. Everyone else was and I don't think that attending the meeting was an optional thing. In fact, you attempted to dial in and then sent me email after having dropped off stating that you couldn't hear what people were saying...why didn't you just say something? We could have moved the mike closer to people as necessary. We didn't know. I'm tired of people who can't even bother to participate at the most important meeting attempting to censor or control me. That is bullshit. thanks, -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_. I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should bring up at the PMC." Do you see how I'm put on the offensive? Early on, I tried to be civil. It didn't work. I needed to bring the discussion up a level to get people to notice. Costin (and others) were doing whatever the fuck they wanted to do regardless of what everyone voted on. It was starting to disrupt the ability of this project to get work done as well as focus on the future. As Kurt Schrader smartly said: "Whether or not you agree with the way he puts things or whether or not he's "nice" enough, you have to admit that he took the initiative to kick this project in the ass and make sure that its goals and future were clearly defined when he decided that they weren't. If that involves pissing some people off or hurting some feelings along the way, then so be it. As far as I can tell, every good project should have someone like him. The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not participate here." Anil, get over it and move on. The rest of us have. thanks, -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Jon Stevens wrote: on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_. I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should bring up at the PMC." Do you see how I'm put on the offensive? Early on, I tried to be civil. It didn't work. I needed to bring the discussion up a level to get people to notice. Well, okay. If you say you are trying to be civil (instead of attacking people) I'm grateful for that and willing to trust you. Let me reiterate that I'm not trying to be offensive. Just merely telling (correction: requesting) you not to be offensive. If you continue to be offensive, I have no choice but to be offensive myself. This is my conditioned response as I see no reason to excuse Costin (and others) were doing whatever the fuck they wanted to do regardless of what everyone voted on. It was starting to disrupt the ability of this project to get work done as well as focus on the future. How many times has this been repeated?! NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH YOU BRINGING THIS TO HEAD. As Kurt Schrader smartly said: "Whether or not you agree with the way he puts things or whether or not he's "nice" enough, you have to admit that he took the initiative to kick this project in the ass and make sure that its goals and future were clearly defined when he decided that they weren't. If that involves pissing some people off or hurting some feelings along the way, then so be it. As far as I can tell, every good project should have someone like him. The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not participate here." I've been long enough around here (seen lots of other people too) and have been affected by your behavior (in more ways than one) that I can't talk like Kurt does. Anil, get over it and move on. The rest of us have. The rest of you have?? Really? Who started this again? It was James, in case you missed it. -- Peace, Anil +:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
As Kurt Schrader smartly said: "The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not participate here." sarcasm Sounds great, maybe that should go right on the main "getinvolved.html" page. /sarcasm -- Scott Stirling West Newton, MA - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
"Scott Stirling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Kurt Schrader smartly said: "The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not participate here." sarcasm Sounds great, maybe that should go right on the main "getinvolved.html" page. /sarcasm JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended without seeming very autocratic. Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without muzzling them? geoff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
At 11:08 23/1/01 +1100, Geoff Soutter wrote: Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without muzzling them? don't bother responding to them unless they do things the right way. email them OFF list stating this in a very diplomatic way. Watch them explode and then hopefully post-explosion they will be more willing to work with you ;) Cheers, Pete *-* | "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, | | and proving that there is no need to do so - almost | | everyone gets busy on the proof." | | - John Kenneth Galbraith | *-* - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
"Peter Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:08 23/1/01 +1100, Geoff Soutter wrote: Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without muzzling them? don't bother responding to them unless they do things the right way. email them OFF list stating this in a very diplomatic way. Watch them explode and then hopefully post-explosion they will be more willing to work with you ;) Cheers, Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we protect the people that get offended? :-) geoff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
I hardly think that we all need to have that warm fuzzy feeling all the time towards one another or that our ego's need to be shielded from having our ideas challenged but clearly minimum standards of behavior between group members should be agreed upon and observed for the health of the project. There is, however, a very clear line between being an opinionated person and someone who voices their opinions in a way that is offensive or attackes other people thus discouraging participation in the project. -Jamey -Original Message- From: Geoff Soutter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Forming an opinion "Scott Stirling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Kurt Schrader smartly said: "The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not participate here." sarcasm Sounds great, maybe that should go right on the main "getinvolved.html" page. /sarcasm JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended without seeming very autocratic. Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without muzzling them? geoff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Geoff Soutter wrote: JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended without seeming very autocratic. I share your sentiments on this. I feel weird continuing this crap too but I'm at my wits end trying to put an end to this sort of stuff. Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without muzzling them? Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed. For example I have no problems if someone says that the way class reloading is implemented in Tomcat 13.42 sucks and why it is bad but not something like: "you obviously are clueless about classloaders, you haven't looked at jserv. sigh! why don't you just pull the code from there?!" Or for that matter, "you claim you are a PhD but you haven't done any research on template engines." I'm paraphrasing here but you get the idea... -- Peace, Anil +:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed. Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to stop. How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on? -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
"Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Geoff Soutter wrote: JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended without seeming very autocratic. I share your sentiments on this. I feel weird continuing this crap too but I'm at my wits end trying to put an end to this sort of stuff. Exactly. There's seems to be a _lot_ of complaining about this topic and very few constructive ideas on how we can improve matters. Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without muzzling them? Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed. I was using "opinionated" as shorthand for behaviour that borders on personal abuse. geoff - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
with all my respect and the truth from my heart, in case you didn't read the "Newbie" email, I would recommend trying to focus on the dev issues, and maybe create another list for the guidelines and standards and meetings. ---8-- To all on the Tomcat Developer mailing list, I recently joined this list to both gain knowledge about Tomcat which I have been working with of late and to also hopefully contribute some of my ideas for improvements to the Tomcat project. Since joining the list on Friday I have received probably seventy-five emails, easily two thirds of which were devoted to difficulties in group dynamics. As a new subscriber to the group and user and developer of Tomcat I find this a rather discouraging way to start my involvement in the project. I have know idea what the exact nature of the exchange(s) that started all this was but I would humbly suggest that all members of a development group like this should be treated as coworkers. Different people will know a lot or a little about various parts of the project depending of their level of interest, ability, and experience. Regardless of your opinion of someone's ability or the role that they play and for the sake of everyone involved in the project, particularly in this environment where all exchanges are shared with the entire group, it is of the utmost importance to treat one another professionally. You may disagree passionately with someone's ideas and opinions and you may even have personal reservations about that individual, but under no circumstances should someone be personally attacked. Differing opinions about ideas and development can be discussed vigorously and many times no agreement will be reached but this should be an exchange of well considered and supported arguments about software architecture, not developers themselves. In addition I would suggest that when disagreeing with someone on a development issue that respect be given to their ideas no matter how wrong you think they are and the time be taken to understand their reasoning and to help them understand yours. Calling someone's ideas stupid is a bad idea no matter how incorrect and impractical they may really be. Such attitudes stifle participation in any project and particularly one where everyone is here out of personal interest. For the sake of the group imagine your self in the other person's shoes and how you would treat them at work if you sat in the cube next to them. Lastly, though I hope it wouldn't be necessary, I would encourage the PMC to draw up a document or amend an existing document to include a short statement of expected behavioral standards. Let's please try and move past these exchanges and get back to working on the project at hand. If you've made it this far through my rant, thank you and I look forward to working with and learning from you all and hopefully contributing to the project. Best Regards, James Courtney (Jamey) 8-- -- Filip ~ Namaste - I bow to the divine in you. ~ Filip Hanik Technical Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Jon Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:34 PM Subject: Re: Forming an opinion on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed. Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to stop. How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on? -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 01:35 ... How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on? -jon Jon, get over it and move on. The rest of us have. thanks, Paulo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything. Yep. I chose to. Of course because of that it'll all be my fault. :) Of course, I'm on a variable time delay right now given that I'm traveling so I'm not seeing everything "real time". Everything I am writing here was already told before in previous postings. Maybe you had no patience to read all the stuff behind - and I can understand that. Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :) Jon often is right and I never denied that. The problem only had to do with the frequent lack of a minimum of respect and politeness. Funny that Jon created jserv.apache.org as a haven for Java development that was to be the "nicer, gentler Apache". The flamewars seen on the Apache mailing list are legendary. Is this a great thing to brag about? No. Not really. However, I personally think it would be a shame to muzzle somebody for anything less than harassment that is probably legally prosecutable. If somebody threatens personal harm, then that's definitely over the line. So far though, we've been lucky enough to not see "I'm going to drive right over to your house and kick your ass" being stated on the mailing lists. As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as well used as they could have been. Understandable. But you are not telling me and others how I should have used the connection and how I am a bad boy for not doing it and so on. That was the issue. Jon know nothing about the lives and problems of several people that he flamed because of not dialing in. We talked about using dial ins from about the day that we announced the meeting. I didn't hear *anything* about the possibility that they wouldn't work for some people. We *did* make sure that the number given would work overseas as we have had a problem with some 800 conference numbers being blocked from international access. This of course raised costs for people in the US. I'm pretty sure that if somebody had mailed us and said -- hey, can you guys do a callback or something, that we would have at least tried to help out. It would have been investigated and if it cost anything approaching reasonable (defined as reasonable to the companies that kicked out bucks to make this meeting happen) then it would have happened. Or, if somebody had stepped forward and said "Hey, I'm bringing my laptop and a microphone to do real time shoutcasting of the meeting", I would have said "Cool, let's coordinate with Collab to make sure that network is provided". Maybe somebody wants to step up and do that in the future? At some point though, everyone here bears some of the costs of participating. It is true that nothing is free. You spend money for the computer hardware that you use to access the net. You spend money to connect to the net. And some even spend money on the software/operating system to access the net with. There are very real costs involved in collaborative development that are shared by all, though some bear a bigger brunt than others. I don't even want to think of the money that Brian and Collab and others pay to provide bandwidth and sysadmin duties to the ASF (not to mention hardware which in comparison is a minimal cost). And if we started adding up the time value that people put in, a big number would pop out. My point is, there's no such thing as a free lunch here. If you want to help out or suggest ways that we can help you, then do so. I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the core Apache team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a strong one. However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example. s/must/should/ -- there's no onus enforced to make people in an open source project hold themselves and their behavior up to some sort of standard other than the fact that if people don't like that person or group of people, they can always fork away or do something else with their life. We do have a set of rules that admittedly needing some work. Right now, those rules don't say anything about "Rules of Conduct". Until they do, there is no "must" there. Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop because I was replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was replying to me (as you wrote, it takes two!). So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got reprehended that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent. Actually, I don't think I reprehended either of you. All I did was defend him a bit. And if he had stated that he thought that you were out of line with your postings, I probably would have flamed him a bit for that... As far as other people reprehending you, well, that's their business. I wanted to see how far this could go. I get the feeling that
Re: Forming an opinion
On 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think most of us feel that Jon deserves a wrap on the knuckles. :) Not in my charter as I interpret it. Most people here seem to want a fairly low key, laid back PMC. One that deals with focused issues. Everything else happens on the public lists. If anyone made a personal threat, then I would remove them from the lists and rap them on the head and maybe even offer to send lawyers after them, but until that point -- it's in the community's arena to decide. At least this is my opinion after hearing how people want the PMC to run. After all, we say that the ASF pushes down as much power and control to the committers as possible. If you want a stronger PMC influence, then the community has to decide to give the PMC a stronger charter. Or the board does. humor basedon="use of word wrap instead of rap"Though next time I see him, I'll get out the Saran wrap and wrap up his hand.. :)/humor -- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
On 1/20/01 11:56 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's contributions to ASF or to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's great. But many posts from Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small bit of toning down would go a long way. I should have been more clear -- legally defined harassment. Threats to body or property come to mind. Stalking. Not being a lawyer I don't know what else the ASF could be considered to be liable for (and of course it depends on what a jury thinks), however in my opinion it has to be this serious for official action to be taken. After all, it seemed clear to me that the PMC's role was too narrowly defined to include "niceness overseers". If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the PMC's charter expanded, that's something that can be discussed. -- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, James Duncan Davidson wrote: After all, it seemed clear to me that the PMC's role was too narrowly defined to include "niceness overseers". As a college student who's just getting involved with Apache after working on some other projects over the years, I think it's refreshing to see people like Jon. As far as I'm concerned, the worst thing that can happen on a project is for people to be muzzled or kicked out of the project for saying what they think. If Jon hadn't written his initial e-mail, where would we be right now? As far as I can tell we'd still be coding along aimlessly until this came to a head at a later date, in a bigger way, with two comparable 2.3 sevlet engines and much more user confusion. I'm sure that if everyone in the community had disagreed with Jon's initial post and told him to fuck off he would have either came to agree or left the project. What happened, though, is that it showed how the community was polarized, cleared up everyone's plans for the future, and gave us a roadmap where there wasn't one before. Whether or not you agree with the way he puts things or whether or not he's "nice" enough, you have to admit that he took the initiative to kick this project in the ass and make sure that its goals and future were clearly defined when he decided that they weren't. If that involves pissing some people off or hurting some feelings along the way, then so be it. As far as I can tell, every good project should have someone like him. The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not participate here. - Kurt Schrader [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
On 1/18/01 2:49 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be clear, I am fed up that Jon: - tells everybody what they should do; - judges and condemns people without knowing how their lives are (as with, but not only, the several remarks about people not dialing-in in the PMC meeting); - makes dirty insinuations about others professional lives; - flames people; - bullies people; - etc. Jon isn't the most polite of people sometimes, but he does have valid concerns wrt stability and following the rules that we have at the ASF. If you disagree with what somebody says, it is easy to just say that they aren't making sense. It takes two to fight, and you are doing more than your share. As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as well used as they could have been. Real money was spent in order to set up that conference call and it doesn't bode well that it was barely used. I understand it wasn't perfect and in the future we need to entertain ideas of how to do this better. But, we can't perform *all* communication via email -- and knowing people face to face *so* improves communication. We'll have to work on this... However, if you feel that strongly, you could have asked about us dialing you or any number of alternatives... Nobody asked about this during the set up so I assumed that the call-in setup was going to be good. He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering to him to see what happens. Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is built on trust more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source projects than I can keep track of. I won't ask Jon to stop arguing just like I won't ask Costin or Craig. It may more may not be constructive, but email is the mechanism that we have and flames are par for course. The point at which to ask people to stop is when posts cross the line and become "harassment". It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set the example) to stop, you are asking me. So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. That of course is utter bs. If you're on the PMC, it's because you are supposed to *have* an opinion. -- James Duncan Davidson[EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
I would rather let waters stay still. I am behaving and so is Jon. However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything. Everything I am writing here was already told before in previous postings. Maybe you had no patience to read all the stuff behind - and I can understand that. My reply follows: -Original Message- From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 22:14 On 1/18/01 2:49 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon isn't the most polite of people sometimes, but he does have valid concerns wrt stability and following the rules that we have at the ASF. If you disagree with what somebody says, it is easy to just say that they aren't making sense. It takes two to fight, and you are doing more than your share. Jon often is right and I never denied that. The problem only had to do with the frequent lack of a minimum of respect and politeness. Also, IMHO, he crossed the line of harassment with Costin and was at least around that border with me. But after I did what I did, I don't complain any more. As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as well used as they could have been. Understandable. But you are not telling me and others how I should have used the connection and how I am a bad boy for not doing it and so on. That was the issue. Jon know nothing about the lives and problems of several people that he flamed because of not dialing in. ... He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering to him to see what happens. Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is built on trust more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source projects than I can keep track of. I respect Jon's many merits. Just have a problem with these specific issues. I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the core Apache team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a strong one. However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example. It gets specially bad when, repeated times, I get reprehended by members of that clique by _imitating_ Jon's attitude while he doesn't. (Some people did criticize Jon or both of us too. I also noticed that.) I won't ask Jon to stop arguing just like I won't ask Costin or Craig. It may more may not be constructive, but email is the mechanism that we have and flames are par for course. The point at which to ask people to stop is when posts cross the line and become "harassment". I think that line was crossed 1st by him and then, according to some interpretations, by me. However, people should notice I never had this attitude with anyone else. I had a reaction and not an initiative. It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set the example) to stop, you are asking me. So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. That of course is utter bs. If you're on the PMC, it's because you are supposed to *have* an opinion. Please read again what I wrote. Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop because I was replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was replying to me (as you wrote, it takes two!). So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got reprehended that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent. I started this whole thing because almost no one dares to criticize Jon. Everybody else had to quit replying his attacks and he always had the last word even while being quite impolite. And almost no third party would dare to complain about it. I did quit threads like this several times and got fed up about it. Silence from Apache veterans was too "loud" in this situations - while some of them tend to reprehend other people if they do similar things. I wanted to see how far this could go. Anyway, Jon is doing a lot of really constructive work now. And, like anyone else, he does a lot more constructive stuff when he is not into flame wars, since these take time and energy. So, I hope everything goes on like it is now and another mess does not start again. I did not say anything new in this posting. James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED] !try; do() Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. Perhaps as the PMC chair you could ask Jon to tone it down. If his arguments have merit then why can't he present his points without antagonizing nearly everyone else? This isn't an isolated occurence. Some may even feel that Jon is incapable of a rational and meaningful discourse. Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh. I think most of us feel that Jon deserves a wrap on the knuckles. :) jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh. I tried to be nice. More than once. It didn't work. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
Alright, this thread was off-topic, and I wasn't going to respond, but, personally, I think Jon *has* toned down the presentation of his opinions, and I sent him a quick thank you several days ago to let him know I appreciated it. It can be hard to recognize change for the better in someone when you have a certain opinion of them, and I think this is clouding the discussion right now. Personally, I thought this list was for discussing the development of Tomcat. Perhaps someone could create a jon-flames and jon-advocacy mailing lists for these kinds of conversation? ;) - Sean T. -Original Message- From: James Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:57 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Forming an opinion -Original Message- From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. Perhaps as the PMC chair you could ask Jon to tone it down. If his arguments have merit then why can't he present his points without antagonizing nearly everyone else? This isn't an isolated occurence. Some may even feel that Jon is incapable of a rational and meaningful discourse. Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh. I think most of us feel that Jon deserves a wrap on the knuckles. :) jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
James Duncan Davidson wrote: Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is built on trust more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source projects than I can keep track of. I won't ask Jon to stop aring just like I won't ask Costin or Craig. It may more may not be constructive, but email is the mechanism that we have and flames are par for course. The point at which to ask people to stop is when posts cross the line and become "harassment". Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's contributions to ASF or to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's great. But many posts from Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small bit of toning down would go a long way. It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set the example) to stop, you are asking me. So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. That of course is utter bs. If you're on the PMC, it's because you are supposed to *have* an opinion. Aw jeez. That's not the point :-) Many other PMC members have opinions and express it and no one has any problems with that. It is the acrimonious tone (many times with almost no provocation) that is hard to put up with. -- Peace, Anil +:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Thanks, Costin. From the little I have seen so far, you haven't added much code; at least the line count is very similar to 3.2.1. You should feel proud of what you have accomplished so far; IMHO, all code-refactoring and re-design efforts are worthy, regardless of where it is released. If it's released as Tomcat, and it seems it will, it will be a big plus. One question: do you have anything to the effect of a SmokeTest -- meaning a battery of automatic tests that are passed after the nightly build? Is it what you call "self-test" in the 3.3 proposal? I think I saw something like that in the cvs logs, but I'm not quite sure. So keep it up, Alex. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Alex, I'm doing nightly builds and source packages at: http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/tomcat/nightly-3.3 Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes that a 3.3 release proposal can get. The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3 doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am. I'll be posting a release plan this evening, that will be voted - and 3.3 will happen if enough people are willing to vote it _and_ help make it happen. I'm still working on the plan, but there are 2 big problems to be resolved: 1. Bug fixes. Tomcat 3.3 will be released _only_ if it'll have all the known bugs fixed, and at least 3 commiters are willing to help fix further bugs. 2. Code review and documentation. I'm not going to propose a release unless and until there is a reasonable amount of documentation ( architecture and comments ) and enough eyeballs read the code and send their comments. Since this will going to be the last version of 3.x( only major bug fixes after - any further development can happen only in revolutions or in another place ) it'll have to basically finish the job and achieve the goals of tomcat 3. I can't stress enough how critical it'll be to get your help. Either bugs or comments on the code or architecture. I'll try to get some time off and I'll spend all my free time in the next months to make it happen - but regardless of what I do, tomcat 3.3 will not happen if you don't help. It doesn't matter how small the bug is - what's important is that _you_ help fixing it. Please don't get involved into any flame - and please ignore Jon and Pier - just don't answer to any provocations. For my health I'm going to filter them out, since I'm not that good at ignoring. Costin P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ). P.P.S. My sincere apologies to Roy and Brian and Hans and Sam and James - I said bad things about the PMC ( that I don't trust it and it's one-sided ), listening you make me believe there is hope. Hi all! I've seen a lot of discussion here on Tomcat 3.3 vs 4.0. Without some knowledge about the inside workings of each version, it's very hard to follow it -- I mean, find out the actual issues behind the "politics" -- or the politics behind the actual issues. The article linked by cmanolache, 'Internal Tomcat', is very good IMHO. But then it's all words; there's nothing like studying the way it's implemented. So I was trying to at least take a look at the code and the way it's organized. But the link to the 3.x nightly builds is broken, so no code for 3.3. Do I need CVS to get it? (Don't get used to those weird commands.) And, by the way, has PMC made any important decision about Tomcat 3.3? Thanks a lot, Alex. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29 -Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17 on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad, nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send yet more flame bait. And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line... Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. What are you missing? However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than what you think Jon is). It as nothing to do with Costin and all to do with Jon. I only reply to what Jon says. I already explicitly said that and I clearly stated that I will stop when he stops. To be clear, I am fed up that Jon: - tells everybody what they should do; - judges and condemns people without knowing how their lives are (as with, but not only, the several remarks about people not dialing-in in the PMC meeting); - makes dirty insinuations about others professional lives; - flames people; - bullies people; - etc. He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering to him to see what happens. It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set the example) to stop, you are asking me. I'll not veto his proposal just because I'm a TC 4 developer. Actually, depending on how he presents it and what he plans to do, I'll +0 or +1 it. I had been looking at the HEAD of jakarta-tomcat and I have to say that : - last time I tested it, it was faster than TC 3.2 (good) - it was also very buggy (bad, but that may have changed since I last tried it), so I think the support issue is essential - the code organization looked cleaner (good) I never expected other than a fair judgment from you. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
* Paulo Gaspar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on Thu Jan 18, 2001 at 11:49:41 +0100: -Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29 -Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17 on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad, nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send yet more flame bait. And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line... Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. What are you missing? However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than what you think Jon is). It as nothing to do with Costin and all to do with Jon. I think actually it has rather more to do with you, Paulo. While I am not, am very unlikely to be, anything to do with the tomcat project - nothing against it, just my java coding sucks, which is why I'm a sysadmin ;) - I'm beginning to get _very_ fed up with your attitude. I can understand Costin's wish to release his "baby" as the next version of tomcat 3.x. I can certainly understand Jon and Craig's concerns as to supporting that baby, and wanting to move on with Tomcat-4. However. I have not seen anything from you recently except flame bait. FUD and self agrandisement. On a quick count of the last year or so's emails to tomcat-dev, I can see about 10 "useful" emails from you. And many times that number of pointless flames that (a) are mostly personal attacks (b) all say _exactly_ the same thing, and (c) are mostly instances of wanting the last word. I only reply to what Jon says. I already explicitly said that and I clearly stated that I will stop when he stops. To be clear, I am fed up that Jon: (does stuff, most of which you are also guilty of too) He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering to him to see what happens. Warped perception of reality? How does saying _exactly_ the same thing each time count as replying? that's not debating, that's just a (pointless) attack. I agree that Jon comes across fairly strongly, but he makes an attempt to answer people honestly and accurately, which is all a reasonable person can want. Can everyone _please_ try to take a step back and a deep breath? I note the cvs commits are almost non-existant at the moment, and this is obviously not an ideal situation for people like me who would like to be able to roll out a Servlet 2.3 based environment. Cheers, Thom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:42 on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?); I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried to bring up motions in the meeting to create censorship over what people say on the list. You should. I am not even going to say what I think about the kind of pressures you make. 2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect that. The PMC was attended by ~25 people and had open phone lines for which you could have listened in on. I have also told you what has been decided on. That is what you are disrespecting. I already told you that I have a life out of Tomcat. Other priorities. What part did you not understand. What do you know about what my experience is? If you have experience then show it by acting like you do. So far, you haven't done any of that, therefore, I can conclude that you either cannot act like you have experience or you don't have any. My judgment call on that is that you don't have much experience. Why do you judge so much? Should I also tell what the way you act suggests? It getting personal the way of Open Source (since you are so experient in the "way of Open Source")? "Costin and others"? Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard evidence that allows you to proceed to an arrest! Ok, all of the people actively sending commits to Tomcat 3.x. I see more support from Costin and those others than from you. That is what I clearly see in the list. AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not? I have seen releases made in the past that have been buggy. For example 3.0. That actually hurt this project quite a bit by increasing the amount of support that was needed as well as the fact that in many people's mind, it set a precedent that people have been trying to combat for a long time...that Tomcat is slow and buggy and that the code is hard to understand and read. Why does an already distant past say anything about the present? I don't even think that the circumstance and people involved in 3.x HEAD are the same as with 3.0. They are being quite systematic about bugs, did you notice that? Notice also that I got to an accepted name for 3.3 (3.x HEAD) without your help. I am not getting anything constructive from you even when I ask. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 08:18 Paulo Gaspar wrote: However, one of them is that there is no such thing as a "version" of any Apache project until there is a vote to go that way, and elect a particular code base to be that version. See below for more. No doubt about that. I already started using "3.x HEAD" instead of "3.3" - which seems to be acceptable. I only did not do it earlier because no one stated that this would be an acceptable term. That should have been clearly stated in the list already. I was told I should stop using "3.3" but was given no alternative. Since everybody has been using "3.3" (including those that now ask not to do it) it should be clearly stated in the list that this should stop and what the correct name is. That would be a way to avoid that people talking about the subject would be confused. And this - in the DEV list - looks so important to me as avoiding people to think that the 3.3 version exists. (Again, just in the DEV list. Talking about 3.3 in the USER list would be a mess.) Still, for me (and I believe that for must of the others) it has been just another name to call the "3.x HEAD". It has been clear that this wasn't yet an approved version. Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path. It was, until it was elected as the code base for 4.0. Now, it's the established direction for 4.x. Note that there was no "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" branch, or any such thing as "Tomcat 4.1", until the vote that took place last week. Now, there is. Such a thing hasn't happened for 3.3. Clear too. [... Crystal clear explanation of the fix decided for the "3.3" issue ...] At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution. Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's still a new version, and still needs to follow the same proposal and voting procedures. Of course. My statement is out of context. Notice that I was just disagree about it being a "revolution" as Jon stated. But this is a slightly subjective and there will always be different opinions. NOTE: When this proposal is made, people who vote on it should remember the following: * Electing a code base needs at least three +1 votes and no -1 votes. [... a clear list of other rules ...] (FYI: I am on record -- see the PMC Meeting Minutes that will be published shortly -- that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that meets my concerns about support.) I would never expect another thing from you. But the veto power can still be misused by someone. That concern was already expressed by other people (Hans? I am not sure) in the list and a mechanism should be created to address that. Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about what 5.0 should be in the near future. So far (to my knowledge), Costin has not proposed it for this purpose. That was just an answer to something that Jon said. [... More crystal clear explanations about name rules...] Craig McClanahan Thank you very much Craig. I still had not seen all this stuff put together in such crystal clear way. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Remy, Rest of your points re: Costin and your position on "3.3" well taken. But... Remy Maucherat wrote: However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than what you think Jon is). Pray tell me, is it rocket science to see that Jon's communication style is basically so confrontational and even harrassing and demeaning at times? You jump up to say Paulo should "*stop* that" (what?) but are so silent when it comes to all the shit Jon hurls on people from time to time. -- Peace, Anil +:-) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
On 1/17/2001 at 11:17 PM Craig R. McClanahan wrote: Many of those rules and conventions are documented (such as the rules on voting), but some are not. One of the things I took away from the PMC meeting yesterday is the need to better articulate those rules. As a new committer to another Jakarata project, I personally think that would be very helpful. There seem to be many deep conventions in play here that I cannot find in a reading of the ASF by-laws or the project guidelines. So far, the only documentation I've found is http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html and http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html . Apparently, there is also a "Rules for Revolutionaries" document, but I haven't been able to find it. (URL?) Although I probably don't understand all the nuances of the "Apache Culture", as a Jakarta Committer, here is a draft "patch" that I would suggest to decisions.html (mostly parity-checks): -- Voting Any Developer or Committer may call for a Vote on the Developer mailing list. It is preferred that a Vote be preceded by a formal proposal offered for discussion purposes. A call for a formal Vote must contain the legend "[VOTE-action item]" in its subject line, where "action item" is Release Plan, Public Release, Showstopper, or Product Change. A * Public Release * Vote is not binding until the individual who tendered the Vote posts a followup message with the legend "[VOTE-RESULT]" summaring the replies. Any other Vote that receives any binding -1 reply (later withdrawn or not) must also post a "[VOTE-RESULT]" message to be binding. All Votes receiving only +1 or +/-0 replies are subject to lazy approval. Any question regarding the outcome of a Vote may be refrerred by a Committer to the PMC for arbitration. All votes by Committers should include the word "binding" next to their vote. When tendering a -1 vote on a Consensus item, a Committer should include the phrase "binding veto" next to their Vote, to make their intent clear. Persons wishing to discuss a Vote before replying, may open a "[VOTE-ISSUES]" thread, to help eliminate premature vetos. Other Action Items When announcing their Short Term Plans or Long Term Plans, developers should include the legend "[ANN-action item]" in the subject line of their message to the Developers list. Proposals are not a formal Action Item, but should be labeled "[PROPOSAL]" in their subject line. Action Item Voting Types Note "Lazy" means that is not required to tally the votes, unless a -1 reply is posted. All votes are lazy except for a public Release vote. Long Term Plans - No vote required. Short Term Plans - No vote required. Release Plan - Lazy Majority vote on each issue. Release Testing - Consensus vote before public Release. Showstoppers - Lazy consensus until resolved and removed from status file. Product Change - Lazy consensus. -- If the vote is about a change to the source code or documentation and the primary author is a Developer and not a Commiter, the primary author of what is being changed may also cast a binding vote on that issue. I would consider striking this, as I believe Committer status on Jakarta may be easier to get than on Apache, and there is less of a need for this exception. -- that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that meets my concerns about support) Here's another place where it gets confusing. Technically, it seems that we can't "veto" a Release Plan, since it is a Majority Vote. (Though, you might be able to veto a specific issue, if it involved a Product Change.) Someone could ultimately veto a public "Release" since that is a Consensus Vote. The cultural idea being, I guess, that this is a meritocracy, and nothing can be binding until we have the actual code in front of us. Another nit is that the all-important public release is not listed as an Action Item, although it is implied by the description of Release Plan and Showstoppers. -- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA. -- Custom Software ~ Technical Services. -- Tel 716 425-0252; Fax 716 223-2506. -- http://www.husted.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
Again, you could have made just the same remaks about Jon's activity in this list. I know I am acting sily by going for the last word just as he does, but I wanted to see what would happen if someone else does the same. I am a no one here. I can aford doing this here. I would like to see this kind of thing complain being made about Jon too. The list was going fine without his help. Besides AFAIK (being me): - I only remember acting this way with Jon; - I strongly defend my oppinions but (except for now) always drop a non productive thread; - I don't remember to talk about my skils in a way that could be taken as "self agrandisement". In general, what you say sounds a rather partial judgement but I am not going to start saying how Jon is the bad guy and I am the good one. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar -Original Message- From: Thom May [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 11:56 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Forming an opinion * Paulo Gaspar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on Thu Jan 18, 2001 at 11:49:41 +0100: -Original Message- From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29 -Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17 on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad, nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send yet more flame bait. And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line... Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. What are you missing? However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than what you think Jon is). It as nothing to do with Costin and all to do with Jon. I think actually it has rather more to do with you, Paulo. While I am not, am very unlikely to be, anything to do with the tomcat project - nothing against it, just my java coding sucks, which is why I'm a sysadmin ;) - I'm beginning to get _very_ fed up with your attitude. I can understand Costin's wish to release his "baby" as the next version of tomcat 3.x. I can certainly understand Jon and Craig's concerns as to supporting that baby, and wanting to move on with Tomcat-4. However. I have not seen anything from you recently except flame bait. FUD and self agrandisement. On a quick count of the last year or so's emails to tomcat-dev, I can see about 10 "useful" emails from you. And many times that number of pointless flames that (a) are mostly personal attacks (b) all say _exactly_ the same thing, and (c) are mostly instances of wanting the last word. I only reply to what Jon says. I already explicitly said that and I clearly stated that I will stop when he stops. To be clear, I am fed up that Jon: (does stuff, most of which you are also guilty of too) He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering to him to see what happens. Warped perception of reality? How does saying _exactly_ the same thing each time count as replying? that's not debating, that's just a (pointless) attack. I agree that Jon comes across fairly strongly, but he makes an attempt to answer people honestly and accurately, which is all a reasonable person can want. Can everyone _please_ try to take a step back and a deep breath? I note the cvs commits are almost non-existant at the moment, and this is obviously not an ideal situation for people like me who would like to be able to roll out a Servlet 2.3 based environment. Cheers, Thom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
How about splitting this list into two lists: tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing the development of Tomcat advance and tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time about nothing relevant ;-) Regards, Gummi Haf -- Gudmundur Hafsteinsson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dimon Software - www.dimonsoftware.com "... 'cause that's what tiggers do the best!" - Tigger -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
What? And deny our fun? Regards, Ramindur Singh Message History From: Gudmundur Hafsteinsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 01/18/2001 11:35 AM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: Forming an opinion How about splitting this list into two lists: tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing the development of Tomcat advance and tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time about nothing relevant ;-) Regards, Gummi Haf -- Gudmundur Hafsteinsson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dimon Software - www.dimonsoftware.com "... 'cause that's what tiggers do the best!" - Tigger -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing the development of Tomcat advance and tomcat-flames sounds like a good idea to me. :) Filip ~ Namaste - I bow to the divine in you. ~ Filip Hanik Technical Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Gudmundur Hafsteinsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:35 AM Subject: Re: Forming an opinion How about splitting this list into two lists: tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing the development of Tomcat advance and tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time about nothing relevant ;-) Regards, Gummi Haf -- Gudmundur Hafsteinsson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dimon Software - www.dimonsoftware.com "... 'cause that's what tiggers do the best!" - Tigger -- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Hi there ! How about splitting this list into two lists: tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing the development of Tomcat advance and tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time about nothing relevant ;-) Well as I do not have commiter status this doesn't count but: +1 Reason: splitting the list is better for following the technical discussion. The alternative would be that some people on this list might get more and more into personal mail-kill-file rules of readers although they might 'also' have some intresting technical suggestions and comments. I think that the most important thing of the implementation itself is compliance to open standards and thus I would also like to suggest to add more references to relevant RFC's involved and similar technical background material to the web pages. Examples: rfc2616 Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1 rfc2617 HTTP Authentication: Basic and Digest Access Authentication rfc2518 HTTP Extensions for Distributed Authoring WEBDAV. ... And http://jakarta.apache.org/site/communication.html is obviously missing a link to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt ;-) Having guidelines and roles is a good thing for such a project, but compared to the amount of technical background information the jakarta webpage and this list contains to much of that stuff. As a regular reader of this list I would be much happier to see a discussion about which concepts of both currently available development tracks are usesful to be merged into one of the next main tracks than endless discussions about nameing things. Guys most of us on this list should be developers not marketing managers, please create a separate lists for people to discuss things like 'That graphic doesn't look good' and 'Mother that bad boy has shown me his tongue' as most readers here do not care much about such 'importent' problems. Oh by the way: What about using not tomcat-sandbox ? Back to the technical questions: Are there any plans to integrate something like the 3.x ServletFacade mechanism into the 4.x track , or is there already something like that ? Regards, Gummi Haf Please redirect follow-ups to this mail to /dev/null Regards, Bernd - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
Me and Jon are only posting constructive stuff now. Don't kick us more! =;o) Have fun, Paulo Gaspar -Original Message- From: Bernd Eilers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 14:28 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Forming an opinion Hi there ! How about splitting this list into two lists: tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing the development of Tomcat advance and tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time about nothing relevant ;-) Well as I do not have commiter status this doesn't count but: +1 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clarification of decision rules [Was: Re: Forming an opinion]
"Ted Husted" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Although I probably don't understand all the nuances of the "Apache Culture", as a Jakarta Committer, here is a draft "patch" that I would suggest to decisions.html (mostly parity-checks): [...] One of the action items from the meeting was to do exactly this; clarify the rules for voting. I think you have added a lot of great stuff here. I therefore suggest that you bring this discussion over to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list where things like this should be discussed (also a clarification that came out of the meeting). See you there :-) Hans - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Hi Alex, I'm doing nightly builds and source packages at: http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/tomcat/nightly-3.3 Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes that a 3.3 release proposal can get. The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3 doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am. I'll be posting a release plan this evening, that will be voted - and 3.3 will happen if enough people are willing to vote it _and_ help make it happen. I'm still working on the plan, but there are 2 big problems to be resolved: 1. Bug fixes. Tomcat 3.3 will be released _only_ if it'll have all the known bugs fixed, and at least 3 commiters are willing to help fix further bugs. 2. Code review and documentation. I'm not going to propose a release unless and until there is a reasonable amount of documentation ( architecture and comments ) and enough eyeballs read the code and send their comments. Since this will going to be the last version of 3.x( only major bug fixes after - any further development can happen only in revolutions or in another place ) it'll have to basically finish the job and achieve the goals of tomcat 3. I can't stress enough how critical it'll be to get your help. Either bugs or comments on the code or architecture. I'll try to get some time off and I'll spend all my free time in the next months to make it happen - but regardless of what I do, tomcat 3.3 will not happen if you don't help. It doesn't matter how small the bug is - what's important is that _you_ help fixing it. Please don't get involved into any flame - and please ignore Jon and Pier - just don't answer to any provocations. For my health I'm going to filter them out, since I'm not that good at ignoring. Costin P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ). P.P.S. My sincere apologies to Roy and Brian and Hans and Sam and James - I said bad things about the PMC ( that I don't trust it and it's one-sided ), listening you make me believe there is hope. Hi all! I've seen a lot of discussion here on Tomcat 3.3 vs 4.0. Without some knowledge about the inside workings of each version, it's very hard to follow it -- I mean, find out the actual issues behind the "politics" -- or the politics behind the actual issues. The article linked by cmanolache, 'Internal Tomcat', is very good IMHO. But then it's all words; there's nothing like studying the way it's implemented. So I was trying to at least take a look at the code and the way it's organized. But the link to the 3.x nightly builds is broken, so no code for 3.3. Do I need CVS to get it? (Don't get used to those weird commands.) And, by the way, has PMC made any important decision about Tomcat 3.3? Thanks a lot, Alex. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Costin Manolache wrote: 1. Bug fixes. Tomcat 3.3 will be released _only_ if it'll have all the known bugs fixed, and at least 3 commiters are willing to help fix further bugs. It does not need to be all. A significant dent would be sufficient. P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ). Flamebait such as the above does not help your cause. Craig filled a void in 3.2 that you, Larry, Henri, Nacho and most signifcantly myself left. Any 3.3 proposal will need to include provisions to address this void. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
I agree Costin. Avoid the flame bait. I am willing to help on code review and - if/when I know the beast better - documentation. My schedule gets a bit lighter next week. I will, of course, ask loads of things. But I hope I will mostly need pointers to things. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar -Original Message- From: Sam Ruby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 17:17 P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ). Flamebait such as the above does not help your cause. Craig filled a void in 3.2 that you, Larry, Henri, Nacho and most signifcantly myself left. Any 3.3 proposal will need to include provisions to address this void. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes that a 3.3 release proposal can get. That's exactly right. The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3 doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am. [...] P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ). It saddens me to see this type of comment after the meeting. I'm only going to say this once and I will not get into a discussion about it again. *No one* has said anything about you being a bad person in these discussions, or that the code is bad, or anything like that. As was clear in the meeting yesterday, the whole issue is about the fact that major refactoring work has continued on the HEAD without a release plan and agreed upon goals, and a concern that releasing the result without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the committers in the project and in line with our guidelines. Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
I totally agree with Hans. I attended the meeting yesterday and would hate to see this kind of misunderstanding. Costin, I really don't think that anyone is after you personally. No one is saying that you're a bad person. I personally think that the passon you have about what you do is very admirable. It's just that the many people in the group are concerned about the main issues that were discussed in the meeting. (support, bug fixes, etc.) And I think these concerns are fair based on the history that I have been told at the meeting. I hope that everyone's interest focuses on what's best for this project and how we can make it better not just on their personal issues. Warm Regards, Amy Quoting Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes that a 3.3 release proposal can get. That's exactly right. The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3 doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am. [...] P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ). It saddens me to see this type of comment after the meeting. I'm only going to say this once and I will not get into a discussion about it again. *No one* has said anything about you being a bad person in these discussions, or that the code is bad, or anything like that. As was clear in the meeting yesterday, the whole issue is about the fact that major refactoring work has continued on the HEAD without a release plan and agreed upon goals, and a concern that releasing the result without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the committers in the project and in line with our guidelines. Hans -- Hans Bergsten [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the committers in the project and in line with our guidelines. Sorry for taking it as a personal thing, I'll stop discussing that. Costin ( believe me, it was one of my worst days, I hope you understand a bit my feelings. ) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Costin ( believe me, it was one of my worst days, I hope you understand a bit my feelings. ) Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad, nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send yet more flame bait. Also, I'm going to ask YET AGAIN and which we ALL agreed on in the meeting... Do not refer to Tomcat 3.3 as a version number. Tomcat 3.3 does not exist before the proposal that you still need to make and should not be referred to at all. Pick another name, it will confuse people by referring to it as Tomcat 3.3 because you are setting expectations that may or may not ever materialize (depending on the majority committer consensus here according to the rules). Where are those meeting notes Sam? thanks, -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17 on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad, nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send yet more flame bait. And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line... Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. What are you missing? Also, I'm going to ask YET AGAIN and which we ALL agreed on in the meeting... Do not refer to Tomcat 3.3 as a version number. Tomcat 3.3 does not exist before the proposal that you still need to make and should not be referred to at all. Pick another name, it will confuse people by referring to it as Tomcat 3.3 because you are setting expectations that may or may not ever materialize (depending on the majority committer consensus here according to the rules). It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to it as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever has to become confused, already is. Anyway, this is not the User list. Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 3:33 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line... Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. He apologized for taking things personally and not actually what he did and then attempted to get us to feel sorry for him because it was a hard day. I don't buy it at all. It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to it as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever has to become confused, already is. Anyway, this is not the User list. Right and I'm asking that references to 3.3 stop and we agreed upon that in the meeting. Yet again, I'm having to repeat myself to Costin because he refuses to listen. In fact, right after the discussion about stopping calling it 3.3 (which he agreed to), Costin turned around and referred to it as 3.3. Then he did it again on this list. I just don't get it. If you agree to something STICK TO IT. Period. Now I get flamed (again) for trying to enforce what we agreed on in the meeting. WTF? p.s. The phone dialin attendance was dismal. No one from this list who has been directly concerned with what is going on and having commented on things bothered to dial in. Obviously all of you who *really* care about this whole matter don't care *that* much. So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in), I suggest that you stop discussing this any further and wait for the meeting notes to be published. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 01:01 Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. He apologized for taking things personally and not actually what he did and then attempted to get us to feel sorry for him because it was a hard day. I don't buy it at all. Sure! Kick him harder! It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to it as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever has to become confused, already is. Right and I'm asking that references to 3.3 stop and we agreed upon that in the meeting. Yet again, I'm having to repeat myself to Costin because he refuses to listen. In fact, right after the discussion about stopping calling it 3.3 (which he agreed to), Costin turned around and referred to it as 3.3. Which, of course, would confuse the people in the room that just had eard about it. Then he did it again on this list. I just don't get it. If you agree to something STICK TO IT. Period. Other people already use the "3.3" forbiden expression and that didn't disturb you that much. So, what about being a bit constructive (for a change) and tell us what are we supposed to call to Tomcat 3.3? (Oops! I did again!) Now I get flamed (again) for trying to enforce what we agreed on in the meeting. WTF? I didn't flame you. It was a quite polite remark! If my posting was a flame, how shoud I call yours? p.s. The phone dialin attendance was dismal. No one from this list who has been directly concerned with what is going on and having commented on things bothered to dial in. Obviously all of you who *really* care about this whole matter don't care *that* much. Or we have another kind of jobs and so. (-"Hey boss, can I call the US just for some hours?") So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in) Should I show you my Agenda? Do you want to organize my schedule for me too? I suggest that you stop discussing this any further and wait for the meeting notes to be published. Man, I am just answering to you! If you are able to stop, I am sure I can do it too! Have fun, Paulo Gaspar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 4:42 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sure! Kick him harder! Lets see, he started out his *first* email after the meeting with flame bait, his next email was a pseudo apology, his third email is asking for censorship. Sure. I'm going to kick back. I'm tired of putting up with his bullshit. Other people already use the "3.3" forbiden expression and that didn't disturb you that much. I'm going to quote my original email on this: Subject: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x In fact, I'm pretty strongly -1 on Tomcat 3.3. If anything it would need to be suggested as Tomcat 5.0 because as far as I can tell, we have already come to the conclusion that Catalina will be Tomcat 4.0. Notice the subject was NOT 3.3, it was 3.x. So, what about being a bit constructive (for a change) and tell us what are we supposed to call to Tomcat 3.3? (Oops! I did again!) I don't care what you call it. Propose a name! That is what myself and others have been asking Costin to do all along! In fact, look at what Craig did...he called his revolution "Catalina". Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? Or we have another kind of jobs and so. (-"Hey boss, can I call the US just for some hours?") However you can spend time on this list sending email and arguing over the same points over and over again? Lets see, I spent 8+ hours in a meeting yesterday over crap that you are trying to back Costin on. How about supporting Costin when he really needed it? So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in) Should I show you my Agenda? Do you want to organize my schedule for me too? No, I expect that if you are going to spend time on this list sending email all day long and responding to me that you would have enough of a care in this project to actually dial in and express your opinions in the forum where it mattered the most. You might have also gotten a chance to listen to the same things that I have been saying all along repeated to Costin by many other people in a room. Maybe the real facts of this whole mess would have then sunk in to your brain as well. thanks, -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch. Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be concerned about when our main priority is to have something better than 3.2 for production _real soon_. 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having it or not. Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path. At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution. Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about what 5.0 should be in the near future. -Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 01:47 did...he called his revolution "Catalina". Why is this such a difficult concept for you to understand? Answered above. Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I have understanding problems when I do not agree with you. Or we have another kind of jobs and so. (-"Hey boss, can I call the US just for some hours?") However you can spend time on this list sending email and arguing over the same points over and over again? Man, I already pointed out that I am mostly answering to something you say. If you can stop, I can stop too. - My answers are short; - I type fast; - It is not your damn business. Lets see, I spent 8+ hours in a meeting yesterday over crap that you are trying to back Costin on. How about supporting Costin when he really needed it? My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help. Supporting him is important, but I have other priorities too. Besides, while you are nagging me, you are not nagging him. Maybe he can work a bit better that way. In the meantime, you arguments are so poor that I do not have to spend so much brain power has if I was coding or something. It is kind of having a break - I need breaks too you know? You know nothing about me, my life and my schedule. It would be polite if you would refrain to judge how I should spend my time. So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in) Should I show you my Agenda? Do you want to organize my schedule for me too? No, I expect that if you are going to spend time on this list sending email all day long and responding to me that you would have enough of a care in this project to actually dial in and express your opinions in the forum where it mattered the most. Not your business why I did or did not. - Maybe Boss wouldn't like if I was connected to the USA for such a long time (I am in Europe, in case you didn't notice); - Maybe I was at a customer; - Maybe I had a dead line. You might have also gotten a chance to listen to the same things that I have been saying all along repeated to Costin by many other people in a room. Maybe the real facts of this whole mess would have then sunk in to your brain as well. I have seen other people defending the usefulness of 3.3 and that didn't sink anything in your brain. Beholder of the truth syndrome again? thanks, -jon You're welcome, Paulo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch. Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet. Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be concerned about when our main priority is to have something better than 3.2 for production _real soon_. How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2? I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims. 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having it or not. It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal to make it so. Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path. At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution. No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete refactor of the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution. If you had listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would have had this clarified for you. Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about what 5.0 should be in the near future. Again, you simply don't understand how development models work. Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I have understanding problems when I do not agree with you. It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things where clarified and discussed. My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help. You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought? What proposals have been made here suggesting that the CVS head of Tomcat be released as 3.3? None! In case you missed it, there will be NO release of the CVS HEAD of Tomcat until there is a proposal made, the support issues have been resolved and that there is majority committeer consensus that it be so. Period. This was agreed on in the meeting. Therefore, it is in your best interest to quit emailing me and to figure out how you are going to prove that Tomcat 3.x will continue to be properly supported. Supporting him is important, but I have other priorities too. Like? In the meantime, you arguments are so poor that I do not have to spend so much brain power has if I was coding or something. It is kind of having a break - I need breaks too you know? What part of my argument is poor? You know nothing about me, my life and my schedule. It would be polite if you would refrain to judge how I should spend my time. I haven't made any suggestions about how you should spend your time. Not your business why I did or did not. - Maybe Boss wouldn't like if I was connected to the USA for such a long time (I am in Europe, in case you didn't notice); Phone rates are cheap and you could have used a calling card and also asked your boss for approval. - Maybe I was at a customer; The meeting was planned well ahead of time and you could have scheduled yourself. - Maybe I had a dead line. Go borrow a phone line. Your reasons are seriously undermining everything that you give as an argument. I have seen other people defending the usefulness of 3.3 and that didn't sink anything in your brain. THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION! Fuck! how many times does that need to be repeated to you? Beholder of the truth syndrome again? Beholder of a complete lack of ability to understand basic concepts syndrome? thanks, -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58 on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet. I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me. How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2? I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims. And the other committers and Larry and... 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having it or not. It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal to make it so. I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me. Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path. At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution. No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete refactor of the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution. If you had listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would have had this clarified for you. If you are happier that way, I am glad you keep telling what I should do. I may have different ideas and still consider that to be an evolution. Even if the majority of the PMC thinks one way, I still have the right to think otherwise and talk accordingly. Again, you simply don't understand how development models work. Sure! I went trough 12 years of software development without having a clue. Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I have understanding problems when I do not agree with you. It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things where clarified and discussed. I am glad you are so happy for thinking you know what I understand or not. Copy/Paste from my previous posting: Not your business why I did or did not. (participate in the meeting) - Maybe Boss wouldn't like if I was connected to the USA for such a long time (I am in Europe, in case you didn't notice); - Maybe I was at a customer; - Maybe I had a dead line. My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help. You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought? What concrete evidence to you have to support yours? [... a lot of bureaucracy crap that Jon uses when he has nothing more constructive to argument (i.e.: quite often) ...] Therefore, it is in your best interest to quit emailing me ... I can stop when you stop. Give the example! Remember: I only answer. ...and to figure out how you are going to prove that Tomcat 3.x will continue to be properly supported. I will help several other people proving that. Supporting him is important, but I have other priorities too. Like? Are you my mother? In the meantime, you arguments are so poor that I do not have to spend so much brain power has if I was coding or something. It is kind of having a break - I need breaks too you know? What part of my argument is poor? What do you mean with "What part"? You know nothing about me, my life and my schedule. It would be polite if you would refrain to judge how I should spend my time. I haven't made any suggestions about how you should spend your time. You did several. (Loss of short term memory again!) [... Some crap about how I should have done things! ...] - Maybe I had a dead line. Go borrow a phone line. Project dead line. Know the concept? Your reasons are seriously undermining everything that you give as an argument. The idea is not giving you reasons. The idea is to tell you that I may have a life outside Tomcat and other troubles to take care. And it is not of you business. Maybe you should not judge the people that weren't there so lightly. I have seen other people defending the usefulness of 3.3 and that didn't sink anything in your brain. THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION! Fuck! how many times does that need to be repeated to you? For me, it is the main point. Keep repeating. Beholder of the truth syndrome again? Beholder of a complete lack of ability to understand basic concepts syndrome? LOL thanks, -jon You're welcome, Paulo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58 on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet. I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me. Because that is where we are at! Duh! If the PMC group (including Costin) agrees on something then that should be respected. The fact of the matter is that the previous proposals have not been respected and I'm standing up to fix that. How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2? I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims. And the other committers and Larry and... Give me concrete evidence, not claims. 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having it or not. It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal to make it so. I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me. Yes. I am. Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path. At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution. No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete refactor of the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution. If you had listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would have had this clarified for you. If you are happier that way, I am glad you keep telling what I should do. Yes. I am going to tell you what what decided and what you should follow. I may have different ideas and still consider that to be an evolution. Fine. Even if the majority of the PMC thinks one way, I still have the right to think otherwise and talk accordingly. Unlike Costin, I am fully against censorship and therefore am not going to disagree with you. However, when something is *decided* and *agreed* upon at the PMC level, it needs to be taken seriously and respected. This is what you are *not* doing. Again, you simply don't understand how development models work. Sure! I went trough 12 years of software development without having a clue. Open Source Software Development != Closed Source Software Development. My assertion is that you are lacking a clue with regards to OSS development. Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I have understanding problems when I do not agree with you. It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things where clarified and discussed. I am glad you are so happy for thinking you know what I understand or not. Then word your statements in such a way to make me believe that you do understand. So far, you haven't done that. My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help. You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought? What concrete evidence to you have to support yours? Costin and others have no been providing any sort of support for others on the mailing list. That is clear. Read the archives of this list. Now, what concrete evidence do you have that releasing CVS head as 3.3 "will help"? Project dead line. Know the concept? You seem to have plenty of time to answer my emails. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
-Original Message- From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17 on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad, nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send yet more flame bait. And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line... Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk about it with no flames and Costin already apologized. What are you missing? I have almost no bad personnal feelings against Costin. At some point, I was a bit upset about him because : - he did stuff which I personnally took offense of, and for which he did apologize to me (so it's past history) - I feel like he could be more willing to accept compromises Really, I'm fine with him, and I've been really impressed by him at the meeting (there were a lot of misunderstandings before, which hopefully were clarified). However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than what you think Jon is). I'll not veto his proposal just because I'm a TC 4 developer. Actually, depending on how he presents it and what he plans to do, I'll +0 or +1 it. I had been looking at the HEAD of jakarta-tomcat and I have to say that : - last time I tested it, it was faster than TC 3.2 (good) - it was also very buggy (bad, but that may have changed since I last tried it), so I think the support issue is essential - the code organization looked cleaner (good) Remy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?); I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried to bring up motions in the meeting to create censorship over what people say on the list. 2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect that. The PMC was attended by ~25 people and had open phone lines for which you could have listened in on. I have also told you what has been decided on. That is what you are disrespecting. What do you know about what my experience is? If you have experience then show it by acting like you do. So far, you haven't done any of that, therefore, I can conclude that you either cannot act like you have experience or you don't have any. My judgement call on that is that you don't have much experience. "Costin and others"? Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard evidence that allows you to proceed to an arrest! Ok, all of the people actively sending commits to Tomcat 3.x. AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not? I have seen releases made in the past that have been buggy. For example 3.0. That actually hurt this project quite a bit by increasing the amount of support that was needed as well as the fact that in many people's mind, it set a precedent that people have been trying to combat for a long time...that Tomcat is slow and buggy and that the code is hard to understand and read. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
ok guys, this has got a little bit out of hand. I'm sure I am not alone on saying this, but could we focus on the core issues, the development of tomcat. if this list is to enhance the development and the communication of and around tomcat, then we are not really doing it right. and if you want to attract new developers, then we need to improve the way we communicate. here are a few books, worth to take a look at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749424044/qid=979792228/sr=1-1/ref=s c_b_1/107-5367122-9735704 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0943233127/qid=979792092/sr=1-2/ref=s c_b_2/107-5367122-9735704 Filip ~ Namaste - I bow to the divine in you. ~ Filip Hanik Technical Architect [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Jon Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:41 PM Subject: Re: Forming an opinion on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?); I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried to bring up motions in the meeting to create censorship over what people say on the list. 2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect that. The PMC was attended by ~25 people and had open phone lines for which you could have listened in on. I have also told you what has been decided on. That is what you are disrespecting. What do you know about what my experience is? If you have experience then show it by acting like you do. So far, you haven't done any of that, therefore, I can conclude that you either cannot act like you have experience or you don't have any. My judgement call on that is that you don't have much experience. "Costin and others"? Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard evidence that allows you to proceed to an arrest! Ok, all of the people actively sending commits to Tomcat 3.x. AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not? I have seen releases made in the past that have been buggy. For example 3.0. That actually hurt this project quite a bit by increasing the amount of support that was needed as well as the fact that in many people's mind, it set a precedent that people have been trying to combat for a long time...that Tomcat is slow and buggy and that the code is hard to understand and read. -jon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Forming an opinion
Paulo Gaspar wrote: First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch. Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be concerned about when our main priority is to have something better than 3.2 for production _real soon_. 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having it or not. Paulo (and others), an important thing to remember is that Apache projects (as opposed to an arbitrary open source project) operate under a set of rules and conventions that, in effect, are the "Apache culture". Many of those rules and conventions are documented (such as the rules on voting), but some are not. One of the things I took away from the PMC meeting yesterday is the need to better articulate those rules. However, one of them is that there is no such thing as a "version" of any Apache project until there is a vote to go that way, and elect a particular code base to be that version. See below for more. Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path. It was, until it was elected as the code base for 4.0. Now, it's the established direction for 4.x. Note that there was no "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" branch, or any such thing as "Tomcat 4.1", until the vote that took place last week. Now, there is. Such a thing hasn't happened for 3.3. It is obvious why this hasn't happened -- this is one of those "culture things" that wasn't clearly spelled out within Jakarta. Costin agreed to rectify this, so a "3.3" version proposal is likely to be forthcoming shortly. At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution. Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's still a new version, and still needs to follow the same proposal and voting procedures. NOTE: When this proposal is made, people who vote on it should remember the following: * Electing a code base needs at least three +1 votes and no -1 votes. * Only votes of committers on Tomcat (*all* versions -- it is all one project until someone forks it to a separate name) are binding. * A +1 vote on electing a code base implies an *obligation* on the part of the voter to actively support the code base. Among other things, that includes someone taking on the role of release manager, all +1-ers being actively involved in fixing remaining bugs, *and* (after the release ultimately happens, if and when it does) supporting users of the release -- in our environment, that means answering user questions on TOMCAT-USER. (FYI: I am on record -- see the PMC Meeting Minutes that will be published shortly -- that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that meets my concerns about support.) Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about what 5.0 should be in the near future. So far (to my knowledge), Costin has not proposed it for this purpose. However, it is important to note that no vote is necessary to declare a revolution (starting with the code currently in the HEAD branch of "jakarta-tomcat") and working towards that goal. The only restriction is that no one can call it "Tomcat" in the mean time. This principle was actually articulated in the "Rules for Revolutionaries" document, which was triggered when I (incorrectly) tried to use the name "Tomcat.Next" before there had been any such agreement by the development community. The result was the creation of the name Catalina, which did not become "Tomcat 4.0" until the vote that made it so. Names are important -- for a variety of reasons, including legal ones (because the name "Tomcat" belongs to the Apache Software Foundation, not to the individual committers). Therefore, we as developers need to respect those reasons and become more careful a out our use of those names. Craig McClanahan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
