On Dec 18, 2007 5:53 PM, Maarten Bosteels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 ?
Thanks for focusing on the main topic first of all. I fully understood why my argument is weak now. You made a really great point. I apologize for exercising some kind of potential violence on you. ;) Let me try to come up with the non-intrusive effort I've mentioned a few minutes ago in the separate message first and then try the thin layer approach to show if it is really thin. I think it's right now to close this thread really. I'll zip my mouth from now one in this thread. Cheers, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
