Peter Donald wrote:
What has been proposed is that the board will be willing to consider projects that want to move from jakarta to top level. But they will be judged from a community health perspective.On Fri, 22 Nov 2002 11:50, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:Besides, are these other unhealthy development communities being proposed for top level project?It is proposed that all jakarta projects will eventually move out in time.
I don't get to vote on this, only the board does, but my suggestion would be *not* to move Phoenix out of Avalon because:
1) it would hurt the creation of a single and healthy avalon community
2) the phoenix development community is basically a one-man show and if the showman leaves the project dies has a reasonable chance to die.
3) given past history, I'd be seriously afraid of Phoenix forking the Avalon framework internally for its own needs.
No, I was talking about the fact that you seem to see this community as a constraint to phoenix evolution and you want to route around that instead of constructively build consensus.Moving out of Avalon would remove many of the constraints that are present and would make it much easier for phoenix to attract a larger community in such an environment.Uh, yeah, route around constraints instead of working toward creating consensus and fix them.
Actually the constraints come from above - the board (or at least Sam?) wants to see that projects flatten permissions and privs. So when you nominate someone for the work they are doing on phoenix then you nominate for the whole of Avalon and vice versa.
A few times in the past people have pointed out that they feel uncomfortable voting on people that they never interact with or have seen in action. Some avalon committers are not active on avalon-dev, others are not active on phoenix-dev. The most interesting anecdote is that at least one phoenix committer got nominated and voted in on avalon-dev without knowing about it because he didn't subscribe to that list.Another reason to blast phoenix-dev and get back on a single avalon community (as it should be).
There have also been a couple of times in the past (and one currently) where I want to nominate someone because of the contributions they have made to the phoenix based parts in Avalon. However they have not necessarily shown any awareness or want to contribute to Avalon as a whole. One person in particular had a fairly negative view of the rest of Avalon but liked phoenix. If these people were nominated it would definetly be good for phoenix but may not be good from Avalons point of view.How can one possibly like phoenix and hate avalon? don't you see this as already something wrong? don't you see that phoenix has already walked over that forking borderline a little?
I don't want Phoenix to become another Avalon: I would like you to work with us instead of against us.
Sarcasm is a good way to express how sick and tired I am of people deciding that it's easy to fork away rather than discuss and talk.What a constructive way to create an open and healthy community that can stand diversity and improve on it.
I am not sure that sarcasm is needed here. I thought you had come back to "fix" avalon and sarcasm is not a very good way to do it.
True and that was a mistake and I take the blame for that. I left Avalon as a single project and when I came back there were *tons* of internally fragmented pieces, including a logging toolkit, for &deity;'s sake!Let me remind you that you have not been active in a constructive way in Avalon for a long time.The only reason I have discouraged such a move in the past is because I think that keeping it close to Avalon is because it would hopefully get Avalon more exposure.funny, I feel the exact opposite.
It felt bad, but I also knew that I didn't have any right to say anything on something that happened when I wasn't there. And I keep this attitude.
But this doesn't mean that now that I have more energy to invest on this, I can't go back and try to "fix" things that appear totally broken to me.
One of this is having multiple avalon implementations, so instead of forking them away and increasing the chance of them forking away the framework with them, I want to see people in the same room and start talking code, not bullshit about what can't be done.
Sure, the attitude of some people has to change in order for consensus to be reached but I want Avalon healthy and solid and diverse and unified, because I care about it.
Remember: Avalon is a mythological place. One that can never be reached, but only searched for. It's a pulsion, not a real destination.
If each one of us searches in a different direction, the chance of seeing the quest surviving over time diminishes drastically.
So, either people join this 'fellowship' and create consensus on where it should go looking for Avalon, or they go their own way. But not with their Apache hat on.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
