As always very well put, Stefan! Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org> schrieb am Fr. 14. Apr. 2017 um 16:34:
> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote: > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote: > >> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote: > > >>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and > >>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening > >>> JIRA issues all along. Hence creating a "git" repository is not > >>> futile if it can raise awareness.] > > >> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues > >> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-) > > > A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that > > stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.] > > > But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which > > he let pass... > > I don't recall ever claiming anything like this. > > Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are > trying to attack me but I hope you are not. Email is a difficult beast, > in particular emails written in a foreign language (German is my native > language and I don't think English is yours, either, there is lot of > room for misunderstandings). > > >> I prefer the "small steps" approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS. > > > That's what I've been advocating all along. > > Fine, then we all seem to be on the same page. Let's move on. > > >> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't > >> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are > >> interpreting the role of the PMC differently. > > >> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered? > >> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license > >> - and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice > >> and I'm not willing to judge them. > > > And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the > > "surprise" fork. > > Oops, I thought you were talking about the PMC harming MATH right now, > after all you started the thread based on the report for the past > quarter, not years ago. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. > > > Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have > > been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing > > the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the > > community. > > > I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened. And I was hurt that > > the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community fellows" keeping me > > in the dark for five months, to work alone on a doomed project, while > > they were sneakily setting up an alternative environment. > > I understand the action hurt you. Absolutely. > > On the road that led to people starting their fork somewhere else there > have been lots of heated arguments. It looked like bad flame-wars that > happen in other communities as well and yes, the PMC should probably > have tried to stop them and remind people to treat each other with > respect. We didn't and I think this has been acknowledged in the past. I > don't have the links ready but I know several PMC members have said so > already. We try to learn from it. > > We don't need to tell the board that we are still trying to do better > with each report, though. :-) > > To be frank my recollection of said arguments is not one where one side > was the reasonable voice and victim of attacks while the other side was > wielding flame-throwers. We should have called out *all* of you. > > As to the action of forking itself, I still don't see anything the PMC > should have done about it. We should have interfered before it > happened. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that we could have been > successfull back then. > > >> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts > >> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that > >> share those goal - which is great. > > > Or stupid... > > No more stupid than most of us working on any other component in their > spare time. > > >> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe > >> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted. > > > Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone > > willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments > > from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same > > reference): > > That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to > agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This takes > time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development approach can > move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based development > that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with our github repos > on our own. > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
