Dims, Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful message. (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago? I don't know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today. What's the message?) You in your e-mail right here have said what you though went wrong and how you think it could be corrected in the future. One of my biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair is that they have done neither. In conversation with the PMC chair I practically begged him to tell me I had done something wrong WRT the JavaOne meeting and what should be done differently next time. He declined. I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any kind that he thought needed to be changed. He declined. I think the message you provided below "If I had known about the meeting I would have done this... What Apache projects usually do is this... All it would have taken was this..." was extremely useful. Please, please encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future.
Thanks, Aaron On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bruce, If you are again asking for my input here it is....It's plain and simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC. If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the "Notes from JavaOne" [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne. Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the items before hand and thrash out the rest in person. All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding behind facade's like "oh, it was a vendor meeting" or "meeting friends" or "We just left out just one person" or "Oh, There was a BOF" or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the project or not. By "bring the community together", hope you don't mean that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two from the strong actions by the pmc chair. Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it!!!!!!!! [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=114807250831613&w=2 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=114840811100003&r=1&w=2 thanks, dims On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain. > > > > On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo > > > getting together to talk about Geronimo. So long as it's positioned > > > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it > > > was. > > Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together, > they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and > let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they > can work together. > > Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this > mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in > some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or > anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them > to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my > conversation to the list after the fact? > > I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from > so many people about this topic. Please help me understand. > > Bruce > -- > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)[EMAIL PROTECTED]&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*" > );' > > Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/ > Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/ > Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/ > Castor - http://castor.org/ > -- Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
