Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Le Vendredi, 12 sep 2003, à 20:51 Europe/Zurich, Glen Mazza a écrit : ...Thanks for taking the time to clarify your ideas on this issue. You're welcome - and in retrospect mine *was* a crazy idea indeed. This written communication thing again - had we been together around a table this would have been solved in three minutes ;-) -Bertrand
Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
--- Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry if I didn't explain my objectives clearly enough, but everyone has the right to ask for clarification - and, if you allow me some old man advice, it is usually good to do when you think something is wrong, before getting the cannons out. Good advice. Thanks for taking the time to clarify your ideas on this issue. Glen __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
-1; he can supply patches and we'll apply them. --- Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi FOPpers, I'm making this a proposal instead of directly a vote, as there are two unusual things here: I've been recently (and rightly) moved to inactive committer status, and it hasn't been a long time since Peter submitted his patches. The reason I'm proposing him is that Peter is willing to work on the RTF renderer, which he needs for his job where he's doing reporting stuff in RTF and PDF. He's been a committer in jfor since this summer, and has commited some very useful patches and corrections. If no one objects, I'll move this to a proper vote so that Peter can start working efficiently on the RTF stuff as soon as possible. -Bertrand __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Also, Bertrand, for votes, you'll have to make
yourself active again--edit team.xml--and hopefully
for more than just submitting the names of people who
have been supplying patches for all of 24 hours. I'm,
however, not very optimistic on that point.
Committership is a months-long-process, and I'll need
to see contributions from your individual named well
past those of Chris, Clay or Andreas before we
consider such a move. FYI, he's at about 1% of them
right now.
I'm surprised you would have us vote for a committer
someone who just submitted this patch yesterday:
if (floatValue 0) {
floatValue = 0;
}
-return (int) floatValue * 255;
+return (int) (floatValue * 255);
}
My, such complexity! Perhaps 1000 people have
contributed more substantive patches--are we to make
them committers too? Maybe if you had decided to lift
a finger for the project and *apply* his patches your
proposal would have carried more weight.
You just insulted the entire FOP team--committers and
contributors--with your ridiculous suggestion. It
would probably be best for the project for you to keep
yourself inactive.
Glen
--- Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi FOPpers,
I'm making this a proposal instead of directly a
vote, as there are two
unusual things here: I've been recently (and
rightly) moved to inactive
committer status, and it hasn't been a long time
since Peter submitted
his patches.
The reason I'm proposing him is that Peter is
willing to work on the
RTF renderer, which he needs for his job where he's
doing reporting
stuff in RTF and PDF. He's been a committer in jfor
since this summer,
and has commited some very useful patches and
corrections.
If no one objects, I'll move this to a proper vote
so that Peter can
start working efficiently on the RTF stuff as soon
as possible.
-Bertrand
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Glen, please adjust your tone. Bertrand is only proposing a vote, not actually voting. Everyone is entitled to propose new committers, it has nothing to do with the actual voting. If Betrand says Peter Herweg provides good input, then it's good enough for me to really consider holding such a vote. We're desperately in need of new committers. You know that, making about 50% of the current contributions. It may be true that in the past new FOP committer candidates needed to show stamina for an extended amount of time before being accepted. It took me more than 18 months. That's not entirely a bad thing, but FOP doesn't have this much reserves to wait so long until new people can be voted in. IMO we sometimes wait too long until new people are voted in. As you pointed out Chris, Clay and Andreas, for example, are actually good candidates for committers although they haven't contributed much/any code, yet. Some people deserve the status if only for helping out on fop-user and posting good ideas. Maybe they can be motivated to contributing more code by promoting them. And there's no hard rule making us wait a few months before we can vote someone in. So let's first see what others have to say about this before beating that proposal down outright. Jeremias Maerki
(Victor) Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Hello Victor, Do you have time over the next few days to look at Peter's patches (and apply them as appropriate)? Some of this proposed code is affecting your turf (FOTreeBuilder), etc., the rest is primarily just the RTF handler--all changes are thankfully just for trunk. Take a good look at the code. If you don't have time, I'll happily do so this weekend. (I'll be taking care of Thomas' SVG stuff this weekend myself.) Thanks, Glen --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Glen, please adjust your tone. Bertrand is only proposing a vote, not actually voting. Everyone is entitled to propose new committers, it has nothing to do with the actual voting. If Betrand says Peter Herweg provides good input, then it's good enough for me to really consider holding such a vote. We're desperately in need of new committers. You know that, making about 50% of the current contributions. It may be true that in the past new FOP committer candidates needed to show stamina for an extended amount of time before being accepted. It took me more than 18 months. That's not entirely a bad thing, but FOP doesn't have this much reserves to wait so long until new people can be voted in. IMO we sometimes wait too long until new people are voted in. As you pointed out Chris, Clay and Andreas, for example, are actually good candidates for committers although they haven't contributed much/any code, yet. Some people deserve the status if only for helping out on fop-user and posting good ideas. Maybe they can be motivated to contributing more code by promoting them. And there's no hard rule making us wait a few months before we can vote someone in. So let's first see what others have to say about this before beating that proposal down outright. Jeremias Maerki __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
RE: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Glen Mazza wrote:
Committership is a months-long-process, and I'll need
to see contributions from your individual named well
past those of Chris, Clay or Andreas before we
consider such a move. FYI, he's at about 1% of them
right now.
-1 on imposing a months-long-process for committer status. Far better, IMO,
is the standard of whether the project is better off with this person as a
committer. I was roundly criticized for nominating you earlier than was
usual, but I thought your judgment and skills were sufficient that it was a
net benefit to the project to not slow you down with the patch process. I
still have high hopes that I will be proven right on this point :-) My point
is that I knew you much less well than Bertrand knows Peter.
I'm surprised you would have us vote for a committer
someone who just submitted this patch yesterday:
if (floatValue 0) {
floatValue = 0;
}
-return (int) floatValue * 255;
+return (int) (floatValue * 255);
}
My, such complexity! Perhaps 1000 people have
contributed more substantive patches--are we to make
them committers too? Maybe if you had decided to lift
a finger for the project and *apply* his patches your
proposal would have carried more weight.
-1 on blatant disrespect for Peter and Bertrand. Peter did submit a patch on
Tuesday morning (my time) which I fairly promptly applied, recognizing it as
one that I should probably handle. This was a more substantive patch than
the one mentioned above, and Bertrand would not have had time to apply it:
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23022
Perhaps more importantly, I think it is a mistake to judge a patch by its
size or complexity. If it fixed a problem, I appreciate the submission. The
first million or so patches/commits that I made were to documentation,
hardly a glamorous or complex occupation (although I find it hard work), but
one that I thought needed attention. I suspect that the only reason I am a
committer is because I was a constant annoyance to Keiron (which was not my
intention).
You just insulted the entire FOP team--committers and
contributors--with your ridiculous suggestion. It
would probably be best for the project for you to keep
yourself inactive.
-1 on blatant disrespect for Bertrand. I do not feel insulted at all. If you
see someone who needs help and you know the solution but don't have time to
implement it yourself, it is reasonable to tell someone else so that they
can do it. I don't know, but guess that is probably what Bertrand is doing
here. My first impression of Peter's work is that he knew what he was doing,
and I am grateful to have Bertrand's affirmation of that impression.
Thank you Peter for your submissions. Please keep them coming, and I
apologize in advance if I am slow in processing them. Thank you Bertrand for
the advice and comments, and for your contributions to this project. They
will weigh heavily in my thinking. I look forward to the day when you can
become active again.
Easily-Disregarded-Philosophizing
The single most important thing that FOP developers can do right now is to
develop other FOP developers. All of my efforts are bent toward the shortest
path that will allow me to say (with a straight face) FOP is a fun place to
work. Come help us. It will be fatal to gain a reputation for eating our
young or disrespecting past contributors because, for whatever reason, they
are not contributing right now. I have already addressed the issue of
disrespect for current contributors in another thread (unanswered to date).
I do not mean to discourage thoughtful, reasonable discussions -- heated
even, if necessary. We actually need quite a bit of this to get the
infrastructure built. But I hope it will always be done from the standpoint
of respect, at least until it is clear that respect cannot be given.
Easily-Disregarded-Philosophizing
Victor Mote
RE: (Victor) Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Glen Mazza wrote: Do you have time over the next few days to look at Peter's patches (and apply them as appropriate)? Some of this proposed code is affecting your turf (FOTreeBuilder), etc., the rest is primarily just the RTF handler--all changes are thankfully just for trunk. Take a good look at the code. If you don't have time, I'll happily do so this weekend. (I'll be taking care of Thomas' SVG stuff this weekend myself.) I should be able to get to them before or during this weekend. Victor Mote
Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Glen Mazza wrote: My, such complexity! That's a bit harsh, isn't it? We could use every hand willing to help. There's no need to ridicule useful contributions in public. J.Pietschmann
Re: [proposal] Peter Herweg as a FOP committer
Hi Glen, I must say I'm very surprised at your response: not the -1 which I can accept, but the response below where you don't seem to have understood my aim, and the arrogance of which I dislike a lot. Thanks Jeremias, Victor and J.Pietschmann for your support, you seem to have gotten the idea. I feel FOP is very much in need of active committers, and my definition of committer goes further than someone who commits code to CVS. Even though inactive codewise, I try do my best and actually lift my finger when I can do something for the project, in the strict limits that I have to impose myself due to a chronically overstuffed schedule. I've known Peter (virtually) for a few weeks and I have a good impression of him and his code. Earlier this week he told me that he had some free time and was willing to work on the FOP RTF stuff, which seemed worth of encouragement to me. What better encouragement than quickly becoming a committer? I know perfectly that there are (largely unwritten) rules about when someone can be proposed as a committer, and my proposal didn't respect all of them. Hence a [proposal] and note a [vote]. Maybe this should have been called [wild idead] instead. I'd have no problem with a please wait for some more stuff from Peter answer, but it is hard to take your aggressive tone. I don't want to comment on all your points, they are mostly your opinions. I will comment on those that might make a difference for the project, though. ...Committership is a months-long-process, and I'll need to see contributions from your individual named well past those of Chris, Clay or Andreas before we consider such a move. FYI, he's at about 1% of them right now I haven't followed in detail what Chris, Clay or Andreas have done, but if they're contributing more or less actively to FOP, why not propose them as committers? Might motivate them to do even more. ...Maybe if you had decided to lift a finger for the project and *apply* his patches your proposal would have carried more weight... This I can understand. My idea was that maybe Peter would be able to commit his own patch, as his first job. ...You just insulted the entire FOP team--committers and contributors--with your ridiculous suggestion... You have the right to find my suggestion ridiculous, but I don't think it is insulting for the entire team. If *you* feel insulted then accept my apologies, it was not my goal in any way, again just trying to help the project. Sorry if I didn't explain my objectives clearly enough, but everyone has the right to ask for clarification - and, if you allow me some old man advice, it is usually good to do when you think something is wrong, before getting the cannons out. ...It would probably be best for the project for you to keep yourself inactive I guess this is for the active committers to decide . Ciao, Bertrand --- Bertrand Delacretaz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi FOPpers, I'm making this a proposal instead of directly a vote, as there are two unusual things here: I've been recently (and rightly) moved to inactive committer status, and it hasn't been a long time since Peter submitted his patches. The reason I'm proposing him is that Peter is willing to work on the RTF renderer, which he needs for his job where he's doing reporting stuff in RTF and PDF. He's been a committer in jfor since this summer, and has commited some very useful patches and corrections. If no one objects, I'll move this to a proper vote so that Peter can start working efficiently on the RTF stuff as soon as possible. -Bertrand __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com -- Bertrand Delacretaz independent consultant, Lausanne, Switzerland http://cvs.apache.org/~bdelacretaz/
