On Nov 7, 2004, at 2:39 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
On Nov 7, 2004, at 1:21 PM, Bruce Snyder wrote:This doesn't mean that you can't talk to humans when you need to go faster, need to be sure that they understand you, or just happen to be physically near them. IMO, fostering inter-human communication is *good* for the project, as we get to know each other as people. That can help strengthen the community.
Per these disagreements, I think that we should address them before we move on simply because I don't want to be bitten by these same issues again. I suggest that we learn from this issue and set forth some guidelines for the future.
As for the discussion being taken offline, ASF project management and collaboration within the ASF is clearly spelled out here:
http://apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#management
and sets forth a rule that email will be the communication medium of choice, but also allows for IRC and IM. I suggest that we either:
a) only use the email lists for dicussions
b) use email and IRC for discussions (and post IRC server logs)
c) use email, IRC and IM for dicussions (and post IRC and IM logs)
In the case of Aaron and Jeremy, I think it did. They felt comfortable enough to just talk. They came back to the list telling people they had a chat, and that the result was that Aaron wasn't convinced (showing that no nefarious secret plans were hatched), and Jeremy promised to explain fully when he gets time. I don't see any downside.Jeremy clearly stated that he would post a summary of the discussion but others disgreed (wanting to be part of the discussion, I gather).And they are part of it - it's all being done on the list, isn't it? We can't keep people from talking - in fact, I think that it's bad if we do. Dain and David sit next to each other, physically. Can they not talk about Geronimo? The fact is that they do, and I don't think anyone has a problem with it. So why have a problem w/ Aaron and Jeremy talking?The summary after the fact still allows for comment, but disallows being part of the actual discussion. It seems that this is another point where we should agree on a guideline for the future. I suggest that we either:You can't stop a), and you can't enforce b). We'd have to scrap anything we are going to do at ApacheCon, for example, if we adopted b).
a) allow offline discussions with a summary after the fact
b) disallow offline discussions with a summary after the fact
a) is our de-facto operating mode. We may have to *gently* remind each other to bring things to the list when we're approaching a decision, or have some difference of opinion, but I think we don't really have a big problem with this.
I agree with everything you've said, Geir. My suggestion was that others wanted to be part of the actual discussion, not an after-the-fact summary of the the discussion. I think some people view such a summary as exclusion.
It certainly is an exclusion of sorts, but that's what two people chatting can be. And in this case, it wasn't an intentional action to keep people out - it's usually an intentional action just to get a point across to an individual, or discover what someone is saying.
I saw it as Aaron and Jeremy were having a rough time synching on the email discussion. They had a quick call (I think it was initiated by Aaron, which I interpret to mean that he realized that there was a comm problem, and really wanted to understand what Jeremy was trying to say... and if I'm wrong about the initiator, flip the names and it's equally as positive...), and they came back and summarized [sort of]. And Jeremy said he'd explain when he had a free moment...
They both were open and honest about having it, and open and honest about the contents and results.
So, I understand and support the principle - to have it all open and here on the email list - but sometimes it's helpful to fallback to these 'legacy' communication systems...
geir
-- Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
