On Dec 18, 2007 9:28 AM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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, maybe there are people wo just can't live with it. But that's a weak argument, I could easily turn it around and say "I can't live with a thin logging layer within MINA." Of course, I am not gonna say this, since I don't know anything about this thin layer. A few mails higher in this thread I asked how this thin layer would work. Perhaps it would be easier to convince people by just showing the code ? Maarten > > Trustin > -- > what we call human nature is actually human habit > -- > http://gleamynode.net/ > -- > PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6 >
