On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 16:34:22 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
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).
Stefan,
English is not my native language, but I don't think that the
sentence you refer to contains anything offensive: "one" is not
"you".
[I can be clearer: I had this issue with Emmanuel, about the
design and scope of "Commons RNG" (cf. ML archive), and it was
acknowledged that "do-ocracy" must prevail over "opinion".]
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.
I know that I can be stubborn, the more so when I think that I'm
right and when all the codes and references I can find point in the
same direction.
Calling off a "flame-war" is necessary, but sometimes not sufficient.
In the particular case I have in mind, _all_ the PMC members should
have at least quickly browsed through the arguments:
http://markmail.org/message/uiljlf63uucnfyy2
In my necessarily biased opinion, the above was obviously showing
that one side of argument was presenting all the facts while the
other rested on pure speculation.
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.
When the fork was announced, it was too late, indeed.
Because the move was kept secret; in blatant contradiction with
the touted "open" and "consensus" and "community" buzzwords.
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.
It's also my opinion that we are more strongly contributing
to the open source model by being a team.
But I often have the feeling that the PMC operates as an
aggregate of individualities rather than as a community.
There are low-level requirements (naming of releases, vote
counts, etc.), but hardly any policies.
I'm convinced that it can hurt the community as it can hurt
individual contributors.
Both happened as we should all be able to see.
Thanks for your attention,
Gilles
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
