Hi Bernd,
I didn't want to leave the impression that I took something personal, sorry. I really appreciate your input. And in fact you did re-animated the discussion and hit important topics and I argued eagerly. And just because I don't want to complain endlessly about stalling discussions I did the prototype and explained why I did it. So it wasn't my intent to leave the discussion out but I saw no other way and hoped that some concrete implementation could bring us some more insights. I hesitated for over 2 month before I decided to start on my own. Joachim Am Donnerstag, den 05.10.2006, 09:27 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann: > > > while I see there has been some discussion about this mixed in here, > > > what is the current architectural target for this? > > > currently, I am having problems to determine our roadmap concerning > > > this. (did I miss something?) > > > > It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some > > discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like > > "too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short > > time. > > The problem is discussion hibernates without a result. > > I am desperate relating your answer to my orginal statement. My > paragraph was just a bad way of asking: "What are the next concrete > steps on the repository/IMAP development stuff people have in mind?", > which you indeed answered at the bottom of your reply. > > Instead of endlessly complaining about the stalled discussions, which > does not help anyway, let's change the way of discussion back to ASF > best-practice: > + stay technical > + don't take it personally if others have objections > + fork different topics to their own threads > + make precise, to the-point statements > + be consent-oriented, summarize views. if needed, put up a vote > _after_ the discussion has been done. > > Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion. > If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting > vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with > early on. That's a psychological fact. > > What I had in mind, in fact, was to re-animate the discussion, to > bring it forward and collaborate with you on the topic. (Your current > code is not available on the project, so I cannot comment on this. > Former comments suggested to me there were substantial changes since > July.) > > I am just interested in understanding what you are actually doing, not > to blocking anything. > > Bernd > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
