On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Jeremy,
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
<cut/>
The point here is not how large someone's code is but whether
they are working with others in the community. As you point out,
there has been quite a bit of discussion over the last few days
on how we should move forward, discussion in which many people
have engaged but in which Sebastien has remained silent. Rather
than work with others to improve the model we already have, he
chose to start over on his own with a completely new architecture
titled "m2-design." This isn't asking for constructive
discussion, it's throwing gasoline on the fire.
I don't see Sebastien's actions as implying the motives that you
suggest.
Anyone can be offline for a couple of days, especially over a holiday
time, without this meaning that they are not engaging with the
community.
Of course. It's not the time factor that's the issue here but the way
in which Sebastien ignored all the discussion that other people had
been doing during that time. We all take time off, although perhaps
going dark just after launching what was bound to be a controversial
thread was not such a good idea. However, if you do take time away,
it is only common courtesy to catch up on discussions that have taken
place before jumping back in.
And I can see no justification for your statement that putting
forward a
new idea in the form of some prototype interface code, with a covering
note asking for community reaction and feedback, is in any sense
failing
to work with the community but an act of throwing gasoline on the
fire.
That is unfortunate.
As Jim says, we all need to work together constructively on this.
I believe this means being open to new ideas, even if they involve
some
rework of code that already exists. To simply dismiss such ideas out
of hand does not move us forward technically and does not help with
community building either.
What you are not saying here is that both Jim and I posted
constructive, technical comments in our replies to Sebastien's email;
you actually cut mine out of your first response. That omission,
combined with phrases such as "dismiss such ideas out out hand" is
disingenuous, if not downright misleading.
All ideas that Sebastien has proposed are being considered - we had a
long discussion on these very things on IRC this morning. The main
questions being asked about his proposal are "what is the benefit of
starting over?" and "why can we not start with what we already have
in the sandbox?" One of the problems here is that there are no clear
answers to them.
In terms of open-mindedness, Jim and I have already engaged on
the technical issues Sebastien brought up in his mail, just like
we and other community members did on the scenario thread. As
these things usually go, on some issues there's agreement, on
some there are differences of opinion, and others need more
clarification. I look forward to others joining this kind of
constructive discussion so that we can come to consensus.
However, all the technical issues he raised can be addressed by
the incremental improvement approach and none seem to warrant
starting over; using something like using a List vs. Map to
justify a re-write is simply hyperbole.
Your statement here that Sebastien is justifying a rewrite based on
this
one issue is a hyperbole that does not reflect the post that he sent.
He listed a number of suggestions of which this was only one. If
these
are each taken separately, then each of them can be reduced to
something
that could potentially be added incrementally to core2. If they
are all
taken together, then it is valid to ask the question (as Sebastien has
done) whether core2 is the best starting point or whether a different
approach is preferable.
It is, of course, a valid question to ask. So, looking at the whole
set of questions and the responses so far, let me ask you - in your
technical opinion, is there enough of a problem here to warrant
throwing out what we have and starting over with a new architecture
vs. taking an approach of incremental improvement? Or if we are not
doing it for technical reasons, why are we doing it?
Far from being negative, I am glad that we finally have these
social issues out of smoke-filled rooms and onto the table. This
kind of thing is never a pleasant discussion but is one that must
be had if we are to function as a community.
I am fine with technical debate and I think this is very healthy and
should be happening in the open on this list. However, when people
express technical opinions or put forward technical proposals, I don't
think it is appropriate to respond with a personal attack implying
that
some anti-community motive lies behind a technical proposal or idea.
It wasn't meant as a personal attack and at no time did I intend to
suggest that there was some anti-community motive. Put it down to
frustration that all the community building effort that I and others
had been putting in seemed to be being ignored.
What I said was "I hope you can find a way to join in rather than
forge your own path." Ant asked me in Dublin what outcome I wanted to
see and I replied then as I reply now: that we can all find a way to
work together on this. Doing so will require compromise.
We made a start in that direction over the weekend with the scenarios
that are so important to Sebastien. Jim created a wiki site and
people have started to add in the scenarios that matter to them; sure
there's not much there yet but as people have loved to point out, it
was a holiday weekend.
We made a start this morning with a fairly long discussion on IRC
about which code to use. Several people said that they had found the
sandbox code clearer than M1 and wanted to know from Sebastien why he
thought we had to start over (I paraphrase). It's a reasonable
question to ask; it's unreasonable for it to continue to go unanswered.
I hope we can agree to keep these discussions technical from now on.
IMO the biggest challenge facing us right now is figuring out how we
can work together as a community. Until we can do that, the main role
technical issues play is as a catalyst for discussion.
I hope we can get past this and get back to the coding that we all
enjoy.
--
Jeremy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
