Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > It is difficult telling unpleasent things to power.
I've always taken perverse pleasure in it, myself, but I'm generally crabby and irritable :D > Truth is nothing but a feeling that something is true. Therefore, not > saying how you feel is tantamount to a lie IMO. > Not at all... Lying implies an intent to deceive. Lying would be saying that you believed something that you didn't believe. Not saying anything is a simple matter of keeping your mouth shut. Which I believe is actually against the rules on the internet. > *YOUR* trying to share *YOUR* solutions. But if someone else wants to > share their solutions, they have to go *through* you. And you don't see > why there's frustration? > This simply isn't true. If you want it to be in mainline Apache code, it's true. But we live in the open-source world, and you can share whatever you want. You could take ALL the Apache code and fork it. You can modify chunks of it and distribute that. Is that a good idea? Eh, probably not. It's a fact that committers have a limited amount of time and everything that people want included won't be. Sometimes the reasons for not including will be valid. Sometimes they'll be capricious. Oh well! > Oh, I think I know what you'd say to that... there are alternatives. And > your right! That's how Java Web Parts got started. I wanted to share my > solutions too, let people decide if they liked them or not, use them if > they want or not, and I wasn't allowed to do it here. So, I went > elsewhere. And you know, it worked out for the best, so I suppose in the > end I should thank you! > Id on't know if you should thank them, but it proves my point. > You are in a unique position, and if you don't see that then you are > blind. And you aren't an expert committee? Then why write books telling > us what Struts "best practices" are? Why write articles telling us how > things "should" be done in Struts? Unless they start out with something > like "here's how I do things, and it seems to work pretty well, but > whatever", then you in fact ARE an expert committe, perhaps of one but > still, trying to tell everyone what they should be doing. It's still your > opinion in the end, but it is viewed as authoritative, and therefore > carries more weight. This implies responsibility. > > And forget all that... let's say I'm completely off-base there... the > simple fact is that people in the community look to the committers as > subject matter experts, and if you don't understand that, then again, you > are really quite blind. One of the few times where I'll disagree out loud with you ;) I view commiters as potential experts on the project(s) they commit to. This doesn't mean they don't have (or have) personal biases; in fact it may _increase_ the amount of bias. I don't view anything anybody says as authoritative until I digest it, perhaps try alternative options, seek out the advice of others, blah blah blah. So Ted says this, Craig says that, James says the other, Frank says this, Dakota says that. In the end? What does _Dave_ think? I'm smart and open enough to take it all in and come up with something on my own. It might be a clone of what somebody else thought. It might be a bastardized hybrid solution (most typical; frameworks often give me hives ;) It might be something completely stupid that I end up using because it's done and works, even though I might have to refactor it out later. I'm babbling, but the bottom line is that I determine "authoritativeness" based on several criteria, most of which don't have anything to do with letters after somebody's name or the fact that they're on a board, committee, or have repository access :) > And if you don't think that infers a certain > degree of responsibility, then we really do have nothing further to talk > about. > That doesn't make any sense to me. You can have a philosophical disagreement with somebody and choose to ignore that portion of debate, but it doesn't remove the technological aspects. > Why is it that in your mind, "troll" equates to someone > that holds a different opinion than you? > I honestly don't think he does (and I apologize for speaking for somebody else). I just don't think it's a useful debate. Debate on technical merits, fine, but this has really devolved into something else, IMNSHO. > I can only hope that disagreement is not construed as disrespect by you, or > anyone > else. > I really don't believe it has been disrespectful or construed as such by anybody involved. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
