Hi Saranch, ... I've been reading this email thread for a while and still can't figure out what you want. And to be honest: I find it quite distracting. This discussion started with you complaining about the process of ApacheCon proposals, but you did this less than 2 days before ApacheCon while you had months to bring this up before. You claimed that "the community debated this for some time" (how proposals get approved)... I don't remember any of this... must have been a subset of the community? Or did this happen outside of the mailing list? Or maybe I missed it all together (I usually follow what's happening here)? You claim more openness, but then you invite people to contact you privately... then you send out some strange "legal desk" emails that I really didn't appreciate - at all (note: only read the subject line... after that you lost me); one suggestion here: if you go that route then you should maybe read a bit more in detail how the ASF rules are set up before you make incompatible suggestions? Some people (Rich, Myrle, Greg, Kevin, Jim) tried to explain to you politely the ground rules of communication in this space and how the mechanics of ApacheCon work and you dismissed all in a rather rude and pushy fashion (if this is not your intention then I think you have to do a better job making this clear). And suddenly you switch to yet another topic (suggesting general improvements in Fineract 1.x/CN... not even sure if this summarizes what you intended to say).
What I'd really like to know: why didn't you just participate at the Fineract BOF sessions at ApacheCon? There was plenty of room to layout ideas. You said earlier in this thread that "[I] am trying to improvise on the project"; again not 100% sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't sound to me that you have backwards compatibility on your radar... and I think it's safe to say that this is an important topic for all those relying on Fineract. Whatever the intention of this thread was: didn't really work out that well. One suggestion: why don't you create pull requests and see how that goes (at least for the source/feature related stuff)? Those are always welcome and it's far easier that way to find out what works and what doesn't... without rubbing people the wrong way. Cheers, Aleks On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:31 PM Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> wrote: > As one of the two primary architects of Fineract CN: > > It was not buzzword bingo, nor, as Saransh asserted in his ApacheCon 2020 > talk, a "resume-driven" set of decisions. Those statements are insulting > and do not promote collaboration nor goodwill. I would encourage community > participants to always assume good-will, especially with respect to people > doing coding work. We were doing the best work we knew how, and we ran out > of funding for the open source work. I personally accepted a wage far > under my market value for two years of work, because I sincerely believed > in the work we were doing. It took me months to accept that it wasn't to > be. I then attempted to drive the work forward for several months > *unpaid*. In that context, I *really* *really* do not appreciate emails > like this one. > > IMO the idea of Fineract CN is still sound. But it is also *not* in > conflict with Fineract. > > Claims that Fineract CN has driven the community apart are absurd: > Fineract CN was never released; most of the community is focused on > Fineract 1.x; And I'm here cheering y'all on from the sidelines. Nobody > needs to spend time on Fineract CN who doesn't want to, and the people > spending time on Fineract CN probably aren't interested in Fineract 1.x. > > Stop with the attacks already Saransh and Co; it's hurtful and unnecessary. > > Best Regards, > Myrle Krantz > > On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 9:01 PM Giorgio Zoppi <giorgio.zo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> this is scary: >> >> Documentation is scattered and use cases other than micro-finance need to >> be highlighted. There is hardly a senior functional fintech influencer >> connected to the project at Product engineering level. >> The CN vs 1.x question would be much better if it had an open answering >> option, my opinion: CN has driven the community apart, abandoning an >> existing product that has active users on it and businesses relying on it >> like that was not a good decision of the project, and also not one made the >> apache way, it was very much driven by the team at that time pushing people >> onto a tech stack and buzzword bingo whereas the featureset was forgotten >> about (in a similar way it happened between Mifos and MifosX). It >> ultimately drove the efforts of collaboration apart and has resulted in >> various larger implementers/developer teams forking away. >> >> >> BR, >> Giorgio. >> >> >>
