On Fri, March 17, 2006 2:25 pm, Dave Newton said: >> 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.
If someone says to you "the sky is purple", and totally believes it themselves, but you believe it isn't true yet you say nothing, aren't you on an intellectual level lying? There was no intent to deceive on the other persons part, but by not speaking up, by not confronting something you believe is not the case, isn't that a form of dishonesty, on an intellectual level? I want to make one thing clear, because maybe I haven't thus far... I don't believe Ted is lying about anything. Not one bit. I absolutely think be believes what he is saying. I just happen to disagree with some of it, and have said so, and I believe if I hadn't then I would be guilty of some form of dishonesty, even if only on an abstract intellectual level, and even if just with myself. > Not saying anything is a simple matter of keeping your mouth shut. My feeling is that if you see something that you don't agree with that you think can be made better, you have an obligation to speak up and try. You may fail miserably, but again, inaction is worse than being wrong IMO. And by the way, we aren't talking about toppling a corrupt government here :) Nothing nearly that grandiose! We're just talking a disagreement on philosophy. > 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. Your absolutely right about that. But clearly, being part of the mainline code is a better opportunity to get your ideas to the masses than doing something on your own, and hence it can be frustrating to not be able to do that. I can tell you I've been approached about branching Struts, and even entertained the thought myself at one point. I quickly decided I didn't like the idea, and I continue to be against the idea because I think it would do more harm than good, as you basically say here. But it's always an option, you right about that. > 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. I understand that, and really have no basic problem with it. They have earned that right of refusal, without question. All I'm saying is there is a barrier for someone outside the circle to get code in the mainline, as you say, that a committer doesn't have (not to the same extent anyway... other committers could veto of course), and this can be frustrating. Is it wrong that it works this way? No. Can it be frustating? Yes. That's all I'm saying :) > 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. Your right, it does. :) But it also kind of proves mine... if my original AjaxTags had been accepted and were now part of Struts, would they be more popular now? I suspect they would. Much more importantly though, would it have helped the community more? Again, I suspec the answer is yes. Again, this isn't sour grapes... however I may have felt a year ago I don't feel now, I'm fine with how things turned out. >> 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 ;) What were the other times, silent protest?!? :-) LOL > 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. And I think you have the right attitude. But can you really say that, from a technical standpoint, you don't expect that a committer knows what they're talking about? Certainly that should be one prerequisite for being a committer on *any* project, shouldn't it? And from the perspective of the majority of the general developer community, isn't it fair to think that when they ask how to do something, and a committer responds, that the response they get is viewed as more "authoritative" than if you or I answer? > 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. Again, I think that's the right attitude to have. But when your weighing an opinion, as you necessarily do subconsciously, do you think that Ted for instance knows more about Struts than me? I can tell you that *I* think he does! :) Therefore, when I'm looking for a question to be answered, a *technical* question, his answer means more than my own, and it should! > 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 :) Not babbling at all :) >> 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. Interestingly, this entire thread has really been about philosophy. I don't think I've talked about anything technical, not that I recall anyway. > Debate on technical merits, fine, but this has really devolved into > something else, IMNSHO. Your probably right about that, but it kind of started out as a non-technical debate in the first place :) I'm not so sure it devolved at all, rather it just continued as it started! > I really don't believe it has been disrespectful or construed as such by > anybody involved. I'm happy to hear that you feel that way. Like I said, I've made a conscious effort to not be disrespectful to anyone, but its for others to judge if I succeeded or not. My desire to be a productive part of this community, in whatever capacity, has never waivered, and it isn't my goal to piss off people I might be working with :) Hopefully we can simply state our thinking, see where we agree and disagree, and go from there. > Dave Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
