You made many good points but I need to correct some. On Dec 18, 2007 3:51 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/> > (4) I won't go into detail to keep some things private but I know you wanted > to find this thread [1] because it was one which you suspected was a veto > against you. You explicitly searched for and found this thread after some > recent events. I have never searched for that thread. What I searched for was a vote about inviting someone into the PMC. Moreover, what's up with the veto from the community? If the community doesn't like my idea, then that's OK. People can veto my idea, but I also have my right to keep persuading my idea as long as I think it's really right and it is the responsibility of the community to pursuade me that my point is wrong or it's just a matter of trade-off. Additionally, we didn't have issues related with framework on top of framework (or library) and logger reentrancy at that time, and that's why I think we need to reconsider the previous decision. I don't feel offended by the decision of the community. What really dismays me is this kind of personal offense. Saying 'I won't go into detail to keep some things private' just makes me laugh; what would people imagine about me? Is this intentional to spread out some conspiracy theory? > However, regarding this thread coming back to life, it occurred right after > you explicitly searched for it. You wanted to bring it up again, primarily > because it was an outstanding issue that you felt was legitimate. Most > importantly, it did not unfold in the manner you wanted it to be addressed. Again, I did never searched for it both implicitly and explicitly, and please note we got two new issues related with the current logging in MINA which were discovered very recently. You are saying that I will do the best for MINA and I want to control this project at the same time by saying 'Most importantly, it did not unfold in the manner you wanted it to be addressed.' It sounds like I am driving this project for my personal benefit and you are upsetting me seriously. > This is all fine, but I'm wondering why David kicked it off and joined in. > I'm not suggesting we have a "follow the leader" situation but the > possibility is starting to occur regularly in my head. This is happening > because I fear having the merits of my points undermined by back channel > coordination. Again I am not accusing you of it. I am stating it as a > concern and something that my reasoning points to as a possibility. You don't need to worry about that at all. I found David and I have similar idea about logging and he is also the author of a framework that suffers with many logging framework JARs. He has his concern and I have to resolve his concern as a committer of MINA project not as a colleague of him. Of course, our employer provides a private IRC channel, but please note that our communication about MINA almost always occurred in #mina channel at freenode.net or this mailing list. > Thankfully, the majority, of individuals on thread [0], naturally opposed > the emergence of yet another logging API. If they did not, then my voice or > any other opposing voice, would be drowned out. As a well respected and > empowered member of this community, you should try to prevent your over > whelming stature from drowning out fainter voices of reason. It sounds like that I have ever tried to bury someone's voice. Did I get something wrong? > Sometimes > there is no absolute right or wrong decision and it's a trade off. So, when > you possess so much influence, the responsible thing to do is to look out > for those that have less influence but are trying to make a point for the > benefit of the project. Who have less influence and who have more? Do I have more influence over this issue? Or... is that you? I might have more influence in overall decision, but this thread is not the case as you already know. And.. explain me why it is a matter of trade-off. To me, it's a critical issue that hinders the adoption of MINA in many library projects. Anyone can create his or her own protocol implementation and provide it as a new library wrapped with more protocol-specific API, and then now we are forcing them to use SLF4J just because we believe it's good no matter how he or she thinks about SLF4J. I think it's even against the spirit of the open source activity; it's rather the violence over potential users. > The majority has expressed it's disinterest with this idea and sometimes you > need to yield to the community over your own beliefs of what is the best > route. Let the community find out for itself if it is wrong. Besides, they > got your message. They already have the information for your approach > imprinted twice now in the archives. If the rest of us is wrong we can > revisit the topic. It's fair to say, the majority is still not interested > in pursuing yet another logging API to be maintained by MINA. So can we > drop this, please? To finish this discussion, Maarten or any other community members will have to provide a better alternative to my idea. Why are you and they ignoring those minorities who have *less influence* really by saying 'just live with it'? There are people out there who just can't live with it. Shoule we let people drop MINA from their dependency like I did for Commons BeanUtils just because of logging? That is a real nonsense. Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
