On Sun, 2002-11-17 at 14:31, Leif Mortenson wrote: > Well I for one didn't vote because I took the weekend off... > This vote did not include Peter, Pete or Berin, not to mention a lot > of others.
yup. > I have not had the energy to keep up with all of the feuding going on > lately, but the vote did seem to be rather one sided. You mean there are 9 people on one side of a feud who voted +1, and x people on the other side, that did not vote? I don't think that is the case. I don't consider myself on a side of a feud, for one. > I don't personally feel that the answer to all this is to pass a bunch > of strict new rules. agreed. (Note the proposal is not about new rules.) > The real problem is that a select few simply refuse to play nicely with > others. agreed. (Note this proposal is not about solving the problems in the avalon community.) > Suggesting an idea and then complaining and complaining until everyone > gives up and lets > you do it is not "working together". All this does is cause other > members of the group > to stop reading all posts by said members. yup. Bit of a general problem probably only avoided by having the people with different ideas persevere, too. > There has been a lot of bashing of Peter lately about him not working > together and giving > -1s without explanations. But from what I have seen the majority of > those cases have > been after a lot of the above mentioned complaining. I personally would > have grown quite > tired of it all as well and applaud Peter for his staying power. agreed. Peter has received way more than his share of unfair comments and I'm very glad he hasn't left as a result of that. > Peter has been on this project for a very long time. He has consistently > put forward a lot > of effort at working with the community to help evolve Avalon in such a > way as to > provide a consistent migration path for users. Anything which would > weaken his position > or push him out of the Avalon group would be very bad for the group as a > whole. definitely. Paul made some stats that clearly show how big of an influence Peter is for avalon (this proposal is not about weaking Peter's position or pushing him out of avalon). > This whole attempt to go over the heads of the member of the group and > get the Apache > board involved in this squabble just looks like more of the same > complaining. hmmm. I believe the board chose to get involved based on comments regarding avalon that were made on other mailing lists. Not so sure. Greg Stein's post: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103682529522761&w=2 > I've had ideas shot down here and else where as well. Having them shot > down always made > me go back and reevaluate my ideas. The result was always a much better > solution. yep. > I will not claim to have had read every single one of the posts on this > subject over the > past few weeks. But the general idea of stricter rules = more harmony = > better product > is false. agreed. The proposal on the table here is not about stricter rules or more harmony or better products. There's a lot of stuff it is not about, I won't repeat all my thoughts on this; I have attempted a summary here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103704193526633&w=2 You can see the proposal on the table as falling down into two bits: - Setting up an Avalon PMC. This is mostly about stuff like legal responsibility and protection, apache-wide reorganization, etc - modifying the scope of the Avalon project. I think my earlier e-mail on this on November 10th outlines how the proposal wording could be interpreted regarding a modified scope: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=avalon-dev&m=103695259224131&w=2 The reason this scope modification is part of the proposal is that a resolution for a top-level project to handle all of avalon its current (de-facto) scope is probably not so smart (it seems just about everyone doesn't like the current de-facto avalon scope). > So take it as you will but your vote is a valid vote on a proposal that needs majority approval. I think it is very desirable to have consensus approval rather than just majority, so your vote is very important to me. This e-mail is to outline why I have voted +1 on the Avalon PMC proposal while further agreeing to just about everything you say in this e-mail. > I vote: > > -1 According to the time schedule set your vote is not currently part of the proposal sent to the board. I think they'll read and take it into account anyway; you might wish to e-mail the board directly to make sure. > What is the answer to this then? That is a difficult question. But a few > people > Growing Up a bit would go a long way to making working on Avalon an > enjoyable > experience again. I totally agree (I think everyone is pretty tired of all the 'political' stuff right now). Rest assured, regardless of what happens with the whole top-level and PMC thing, Growing Up will still be necessary. cheers, - Leo Simons -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
