Ok, Stefano, Pier, all others, I guess we can simply stop this thread and go on with the proposal discussion. I had the perception that it wasn't revertable and that because all karma to the old repos was removed that is had already been decided.
So, we had some misunderstandings that we have now cleared and we can happily discuss everything in the other thread. I hope this is ok, and we will meet again in "[PROPOSAL] New CVS Repository Names" Carsten > -----Original Message----- > From: Stefano Mazzocchi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 12:10 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: What Cocoon is really doing wrong [was: CVS repository > changes... (and what's left to do)] > > > Carsten Ziegeler wrote: > > I just want to keep on the tradition of writing mails > > that explain what cocoon is doing wrong :( > > > > We really should avoid "action fast" when this has a great impact > > on all developers and all users of cocoon, like renaming cvs > repositories > > etc. Reverting things like these is more than a pita. > > Reverting things like these are piece of cake, Carstern. In fact, it's > just a matter or changing back the access grantes to the module. (the > fact that it's now a symlink rather than a real module shouldn't > bother you) > > > So, we really should come back to the usual open source handling > > of things: first a proposal, than a vote, than the action. > > We are in the middle of a transition. This community voted to be a > top-level project and the ASF agreed. > > I understand that a transition is always painful, but things are done > for good. > > now, I agree with you that Pier should have done a proposal first, but > knowing him, nothing he did can't be easily reversed. [he's a 'do first > apologize later' type of guy... and I like that in a CVS-backedup > environment] > > > And not: making a proposal and during the proposal doing the > > action only because one committer that "great". > > I can't parse this sentence, can you restate? > > > All the other > > committers had even no chance to say their opinion. > > You are saying your opinion. I am listening to your opinion. Nothing > that was done can't be reversed. > > > You have to give other committers at least one day time, because > > we don't live all on the same site of the world, but I guess for > > such important isuess one week (as it is handled e.g. by the > > avalon group) is much better. > > If we take a week for each vote, we'll be starting to act as a JSR > working group and will take years to do something :) > > I like the 'do first, revert if somebody complains' approach for small > things. > > I like the proposal/lazy-consensus/act things for bigger things. > > I agree with you that Pier should have followed the second approach this > time. > > > Sorry Pier that this time it hits you, but I hope you feel better > > when you know that you are not the only one doing things in cocoon > > this way. Even I do it sometimes...but it really depends on the > > impact of the change. If the change can be simply reverted it might > > be seen as "ok". > > Carsten, Pier did nothing that can't be reversed in 15 minutes, as he > clearly stated. > > > So as a personal consequence, I will stop my work on cocoon until > > this is sorted out, because I'm feeling really unsure on how to > > handle any committs and how it will go on. > > What can we do to change this perception of yours? > > > (The good thing about it is that it gives me some time to finish > > things in avalon). > > This is good. > > -- > Stefano Mazzocchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
