On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me. This has nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue. The point here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have been involved in. Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred.
Um... OK. I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was that big a deal. If it bothered you, I'm sorry. Let's talk about it. What do you recommend? The constraints I see are that is should be able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code. Do you agree? Disagree? What do you recommend for a hosting site?
This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.
I find this extra-confusing. I took a piece of Geronimo which was hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or not as you please). And you feel that as the primary author of the code, you should have been consulted? That I'm somehow using your own hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a whole? I'm sorry for offending you. But I don't understand your objection.
Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it. Its more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO.
I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples, LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution. The Java 5 stack trace in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been working hard to slim down our distributions. I am pretty sure we agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while. But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is showing disrespect. We're all in this together, and it's not your code or my code, it's our code. I promise, if you make the console more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be offended, I'll buy you a beer.
As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant discussion with others before taking action.
Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion. Sorry it wasn't sooner, but better late than never, eh?
Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along with verbiage that bordered on threatening language. Your private email to me started out with "Watch your tone". This is the intimidation stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit.
Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to the list. :) Sorry.
I attended for a total of about an hour. I am speaking from hearsay here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed? I was told by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting. This in-and-of-itself is the issue. Knowing Geir was in town, and especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event. JavaOne is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings (positive or negative) about each other. For those who could not attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged. This should have been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed not everyone was there. We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and Geronimo. We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.
I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not invited, Geir and others. True, it would have been smart to arrange a dial-in. Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be overlooked either. If the outcome of this is that no one should have a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that (but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable). I talked to another committer at a different conference recently, and we brainstormed some ideas for improving the product. Was that wrong? Where's the line? Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't? If there was some policy, believe me, I'd work with it. Perhaps we should organize a series of Geronimo community meetings, throughout the year, so we can address issues (like this) closer to when they come up, and there would be less motivation to set up individual meetings at conferences and things. Would that help? Would you help organize such a thing? I would. We can try for something in Barcelona or Dublin, if that's not too soon. Thanks, Aaron
>> Aaron Mulder wrote: >> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate >> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'. >> > >> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the >> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies, >> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the >> > console, and so on. When the original deadline came, the product was >> > not stable enough to ship. I'm sure that some of the features I've >> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which >> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration >> > for it. Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I >> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and >> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we >> > move forward. >> > >> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed >> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map... If there >> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there >> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc >> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed >> > it?). Now we're trying to put out a release when our only >> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week. I >> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12 >> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC >> > builds) at well-defined interrvals. As a user, I certainly >> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports, >> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it >> > and test the fixes, etc. I don't think that one build and 72 hours is >> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release. I don't feel >> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but >> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see >> > how it goes. If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and >> > try something different for the release after. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Aaron >> > >> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote: >> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release. No >> one can >> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out >> there. And >> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're >> >> >> working toward are. >> >> > >> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline >> (i.e., a >> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may >> help on >> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually >> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular >> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a >> volunteer >> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community >> >> > immensely. >> >> >> >> I have to disagree here. Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is >> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has >> >> talked about is clearly an issue. On these lists, Matt has made >> things >> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with >> group >> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo. I >> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations. >> >> >> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on >> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a >> panacea. >> >> >> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around >> >> talking about "secret" agendas. This would dismay me as I fully >> expect >> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in >> >> these lists. If an email like this is being passed around, then we >> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long >> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team. I think >> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with. >> >> >> >> Jeff >> >> >> >> > >> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a >> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will >> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature >> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, >> determining >> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite >> difficult. >> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals. >> >> > >> >> > Just my $0.02. >> >> > >> >> > Bruce >> >> >> > >> > >> > >>
