> -----Original Message----- > From: Niclas Hedhman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... > Now, since I aired this on community@, I am getting the feeling that this > is a touchy subject and should not be discussed in open. That worries me > more. What is there to hide? Why can't I ask for a clarification for > everyone in the community at large to see? Being 'kicked out' of your own > work is a big thing that I think most active committers would like to know > more about. No?
You cannot be 'kicked out' of your own work in the sense that (1) you still own the copyright to the code you've committed and (2) the ASL means you can still go and do just about anything you want with not only your code, but everyone else's too. So it is very incorrect to say you get kicked out of your own work. A community can censure an individual due to misconduct. As I stated to you before, the conditions and policies surrounding such an action are usually laid out in the bylaws of the project. If not, then the PMC must come to an agreement on the subject. However, in this case it never even got that far. Stephen McConnell resigned from the Avalon project. Action very well may have been taken against him by the PMC (there was certainly talk about it) but Stephen stepped out before it escalated to that point. These policies and rules are in place for when the community breaks down, something that shouldn't happen in a healthy ASF project. The rules about vetos and freezing committer access are in place so that commit wars and individual arguements can be contained to limit the damage to the community as a whole. There is nothing sinister about them, nor is there any secret agenda by PMCs or the Board. > -----Original Message----- > From: Henning Schmiedehausen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > But as my primary project in the Jakarta Community (Turbine) considers > moving closer to Avalon, I'd still be very interested to get the view > from both sides. Could some of the Avalon folks maybe state in a few > sentences, what is the issue over Avalon / Merlin and the rejected > Metro proposal? I disagree with the version of events are presented by Stephen and Niclas, though their points are not completely unfounded. Here is my digest version: 1. Avalon did not have a clear singular project vision on which all the developers agreed on, i.e.- should we develop containers? one or many? frameworks? component library? all of the above? 2. Needless to say, arguements about what Avalon should be or not be have plagued the project for several years. Some people left in disgust, some were removed, some continued to battle it out for supremacy. 3. Just because someone was left standing in the end only shows he was more stubborn than the rest, not necessarily that his vision was "best" for Avalon and its users or what they wanted. Now, I personally feel that Avalon has had in its ranks some of the best programmers your ever going to find. And almost every idea presented or worked on under the Avalon banner had excellent merit. But when they all compete for the title and future of the project, no one wins. Some of us have tried very hard to bridge the gap between the various ideologies and developer teams to no avail. Solutions are not easy to find when there is still resentment in the air and when misconduct and stubborness continues. Consequently attempts to resolve the issues have stalled a number of times. That's about as nice as I can put it. I've made a few other comments on my blog [1] if anyone is actually that interested in learning more. jaaron [1] http://www.jadetower.org/muses/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
