Hi all, First of all let me say I cannot keep up too much with these emails after having had surgery on my right hand so my responses may take some time.
Second let me state that I am not mad at anyone or any topic. David Lloyd is welcome here to work with us any time he likes but we have a way in which we work with clear rules. A strong community follows them respectfully. There are many smart people here with strong oppinions and so they try to reroute ways to solve their problems and that is just fine so long as it does not compromise the project and the community. We are not here to make other peoples lives any harder than it already is. However when a veto is given we must abide by it or the system falls apart. What will happen to this TLP if votes are disregarded because they do not suite a particular party? To maintain order and protect the integrity of the PMC, members step up and enforce the rules. When people persist irregardless, then someone must put their foot down. Some people just want to cater to public opinion and would rather not put their reputation on the line to defend these rules however inclusion in the PMC requires it. This kind of "jurisdiction" commentary in the IRC conversation below is just silly. No one is here to be a blocker. We want companies to benefit from the use of this code and contribute to the community. The problem here was the concerted persistence by Trustin and co-workers to reroute and disregard the veto without a clear refutation. Furthermore various suspected back channels including a corporate one were used to coordinate it. We cannot allow the rules of the ASF to be violated by clearly demonstrated "follow the leader" dynamics combined with collusion on corporate back channels which involve a project's Chair. I am sure that there was no malicious intent here. I've known Trustin for a long time. Perhaps there was some internal request form a co-worker and there was greater pressure to accept the change. I'm sure Trustin did not think there was anything wrong with this. And perhaps there was some lose of face or something with the veto that followed. However a camp was formed, consciously or unconsciously, up to a point I had to raise a veto because it was unacceptable. The veto besides technical merits appears to have been the right move because of back channel attempts to push modifications. We're not here because we have to be but here because we prefer to be to work with each other and have fun in a pure interaction without tampering or staging. So let's have fun and work together to reach our goals which we all want to show MINA's value and the value of the community behind it. When interactions are clean and fair there's no need to get worked up. Alex On Jan 11, 2008 9:26 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After some discussion with David Loyd on IRC, the context has been > clarified : Log2Log won't be an Apache project. > > Here is the copy of this convo : > > <dmlloyd> elecharny: don't worry - log2log is a completely separate > project. No impact on MINA or any ASF project whatsoever - and thus it > is out of Alex's (or anyone else's) jurisdiction :) > <elecharny> where will it be stored ? > <dmlloyd> jboss.org > <elecharny> ok > <elecharny> this was not clear in Trustin's mail... > <elecharny> so my question :) > <dmlloyd> it's a reasonable question :) > <elecharny> can you answer it on the ML so that Alex don't get mad ? > <dmlloyd> hm, well I think alex gets mad any time he sees the name > "David Lloyd" and "Logging" together :) > <dmlloyd> but I can do so > <elecharny> dmlloyd, don't think that Alex has anything against you at > all. > <elecharny> it's all about the way the ASF works > <dmlloyd> yeah, the whole veto thing > <elecharny> there are rules, they must be followed, thaht's it > <elecharny> in three years, Alex just vetoed one single thing, and it > was the log proposal > <elecharny> pretty reasonnable ... > <dmlloyd> sure > > > Another thing that's I don't think is correct : I searched about an > announcement on the SLF4j site about this MDC improvement and didn't > found any. After some googling, I found the convos here : > > > http://www.nabble.com/basic-MDC-support-for-java.util.logging-td13142522.html > > It's certainly mandatory to CC the MINA mailing list for such things, as > it has an impact on the code base. Some of us may have some opinions or > ideas about other technical solutions, and would prefer to be informed > before any decision is made. And having to google to get the rationals > is definitively painful... > > This is the way we work, and it should be followed, for the good of the > project ! > > Thanks. > > -- > -- > cordialement, regards, > Emmanuel Lécharny > www.iktek.com > directory.apache.org > > >
