Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom]

I started this thread and at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness.
Aaron, I for one would like to say that my frustration that started the monster was fueled by about 
3 hours sleep and the right combination of responses on the thread.  I can't say the frustrations 
weren't real as they were but I think the thread has gotten off track.

You are not an evil immoral person.  You're a smart and creative developer that I imagine is more 
focused on doing than perhaps taking other things into consideration.  I forget to shave, I have 
lapses in judgement and I imagine there are those that can say I use colourful language that is not 
normally part of my vocabulary.  Am I evil and immoral, no (at least I hope not).

At this point I'd like us all to walk away from the thread with some food for thought and some 
changes in the way we interact.  Could I have been more pedantic on dates for the release? 
Administration was not one of the gifts I received.  Could you have communicated the geronimoplugins 
thing earlier and solicited feedback; sure.

I'll offer this olive branch if your willing.  Let's work together to get the couple of things that 
make sense for Apache as plugins setup on our site.  Let's fix the problem Dain so aptly pointed out 
that we are beating to death and could have solved 10 times.  I got some really good feedback on the 
plugins from a customer, er... hmmm..., a user, yeah that's it, a user :) that they thought would 
make it really useful to them.  I'll start a separate thread on that.

As the policeman said at the scene of the accident, "Ok folks, move along, there is nothing to see 
here anymore."

Matt

Aaron Mulder wrote:
On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Jeff,

All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.

Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
mind, would you?

Of course not.

We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?

You are not wrong.

It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for
providing a solution that the project needs.  I am utterly baffled by
why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a
charity effort.  And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how
putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying
that my contributions outweight anybody else's.  Finally, it's not at
all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap.

Jeff, I must be stupid.  Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm
immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my
contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to
reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository.

Thanks,
  Aaron

On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would 
either?
>
> I think Matt was trying to make a point.
>
> I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
> here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
> what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
> each other.
>
> Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
> clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
> that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
> moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
> server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
> just me.
>
> To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
> server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, 
developer,
> Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
> default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity 
effort
> without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
> exploited...again maybe that's just me.
>
> I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
> project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
> the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
> rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
> community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
>
> That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
> had to offer up why it bothers me.
>
> Thats my penny's worth ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
> >> at that one.  Let's be
> >> consistent in our interpretations.
> >>
> >> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he 
was
> >> going
> >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> >> >
> >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and 
needed...communication.  Lets
> >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> >> > beating a dead horse here...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Bruce
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>


--
Regards,
Hiram