Alex, Comments inline...
On Jan 22, 2008 4:44 PM, Alex Karasulu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm being diligent as a concerned ASF member and part of the MINA PMC. MINA > has a young PMC that barely understands the rules. Some are missing. 90% > of the code/commits were from you in the past year. This is not healthy and > pretty close to a red line. Someone just said to me that MINA is a mock PMC > with Trustin followers. I know and hope this is not the case, but you > cannot be disappointed if at times these facts eat away at good faith. > > While at Directory I've seen you panicking, thinking "I am the only MINA > committer - we don't have enough critical mass." We discussed how more > protocols using MINA will help the community but you always tried to move > codecs into MINA. At Directory you moved the LDAP ASN.1 codec into MINA and > we had to move it back. We could not release ApacheDS without pushing for a > MINA release until we broke that release dependency problem here [0]. > > This is a repeat offense with the HTTP codec here [1]. The first time we > just fixed the problem and you complained a bit. After realizing the > ASN.1codec is only useful for LDAP you let it go. It's a tendency you > have so it > is something that needs to be balanced to result in the right outcome. If > we can stuff it into MINA we will do that OK - I promise. Please don't take > it personally. I want community for MINA too but not at a cost to other > budding projects that are extremely susceptible. I am loud and can fight > for what is right (when I am aware something wrong is happening) but others > might not and that's my reason for intervening and pushing the present > outcome. Others might just accept the circumstances or leave. > > Projects that use MINA will always have their committers coming back to > MINA. Having projects blossom to possibly graduate from MINA should not > seem threatening but uplifting. It's a good thing - it means another > success story for MINA. Sure. Thank you for the response, and I got your point. Actually my recent message was to express that I understand such a concern you and others have and provide some resolution for what we are supposed to do in 2008. Again, I appreciate your advice. > On Jan 21, 2008 4:11 PM, Trustin Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > => The HTTP codec is *not* part of MINA core at all. We can always > > assemble it back into AsyncWeb within an hour, because it was just > > almost renaming packages of some classes since it was imported into > > sandbox. What matters is how individual components under MINA project > > are versioned, and that's why we are discussing about restructuring. > > Safe-guarding these new protocol sub-projects was my aim and I achieved that > so I am satisfied. This restructuring conversation began after other threads > commenced so let's not pretend as though I missed something. Pretend? I have to disagree here. Emmanuel and I was discussing about restructuring which is directly related with your concern, and your concern was already resolved in a rough form an hour ago before you send a message with six-step disaster scenario. > Peter's suggestion in the restructuring thread was, as usual, to diffuse > tension after seeing some storm about to brew. It's a skill Peter perfected > at Avalon; we should spare him from having to apply it here too. Yes. He is one of the best asset in this team and I really appreciate that he is here with us. His response was very adequate. I just wonder what would have happened if I didn't ask him to write some response at that time. > Go back and reread the trail of emails on this "Was" thread to put them in > perspective before you changed the subject. If you look objectively you'll > see, first you blow off my proposal. Second even with undeniable facts you > try to "save face" as someone more senior and community conscious corrects > you. Don't feel threatened - just learn and move on. I may not be gentle, > and can be stern. Perhaps even rough especially when I feel I have to plow > through a committer with possibly several followers to amplify their > message. I appreciate your adivce, and agree that you made a valid point here. Let me not be defensive unnecessarily. I must admit that I am still too young and need to learn how to communicate with people properly. Let's hope I don't make such a mistake anymore. > > So, please stop making incorrect assumptions that MINA will be another > > Jakarta or MINA will swallow existing products anymore. (yeah you > > already have stopped I guess, but I hope you don't overreact again > > later and I don't want to overreact, either.) > > My assumptions are right on target (subversion and mail archives will show > this [0],[1] - more available on both points if you like). Again, your assumptions *were* right, and I fully understand that. However, you missed other thread about restructuring and wrote something you didn't have to write. > You're displeasure in hearing my assumptions is not my problem. Let me correct here. It is other less-involved community members' displeasure as well as my displeasure. It's also your problem as a PMC member because it can affect the overall mood of the community. Yes, I am the one who's mostly responsible for it, but we could do much better for the community. Driving the community in the right direction is very important and you did a very good job. But it is also important to maintain the community without unnecessary communication which can be shown as noise or firefight to less-involved users. Yeah, I know you have to do that to give some impact and provision your insight to the community and it's very valid and it's the sign of your integrity as a PMC member. However, you could do that more in a caution. > => However, I'd like to express my disappointment on the premature > > exaggeration of the current situation of the project in this thread, > > especially considering that the community already started to discuss > > to find the solution that addresses everyone's concern. Please be > > more careful and double check your mail box before posting something > > important. > > Was this really necessary? Yes, because of the point I made above. > => We are all responsible for the IP clearance process. All PMC > > members need to learn the IP clearance process so it's taken care of > > even if the PMC chair is overwhelmed or distracted by other issues. > > Especially, if there's someone who has an experience with IP > > clearance, he or she has to do the best to mentor other PMC members, > > instead of just sitting down and looking at the clearance process > > being delayed like AsyncWeb did. > > There are documents on how to do this. Just goto the incubator and follow > the process. One cannot plead ignorance to the legalities that the ASF must > abide by; most especially officers. > > I spent countless hours arguing with the lawyers of the company that granted > Asyncweb trying to get them to realize that we cannot change the wording of > a software grant for just them. I ran out of time and could not assist you > - eventually you read the docs and did it yourself. I don't see a problem > with the Chair doing some paperwork. > ... I am not blaming a certain person here. Do not take it personally. Why are you defending yourself? You did a great job at that time, and we all know your enourmous effort to bring AsyncWeb here. The point here is that we need to be more diligent and work as a team to help each other. Of course, the chairman is the one who finalizes the paperwork, and I did it at last. Even if it was not what you think, you raised an issue that IP clearance process was too slow in MINA, so it is necessary to ask PMC members to be more diligent in IP clearance, even if I am the chairman who's responsible for the process finally. You were the most diligent person at that time, so I don't know why you are saying this here. > > This year, we will experience a lot of change in this project and see > > more adoption. > > Hopefully! I am looking forward to a 2.0. I will commit time to helping. > > > I have been committing almost 90% of code recently and > > it's not the exact situation I wanted to see in 2008. > > Yes, this is not healthy. We need more people in the core. If you will > help me get acquainted with the 2.0 alterations I will try my best to > contribute to maintaining the core to help balance things. 2008 will be an exciting year thanks to MINA 2.0 and other subprojects, and let's start from resolving a pile of JIRA issues. That will help all of us get acquainted with the core and other components. > Also, it would be nice if we don't *seem* to have people vote a certain way > because you voted that way. Please keep an eye out on how big your > influence is. If you show me that you are concerned here then it's much > harder for me or anyone else to make assumptions. You have no idea of how > much of a wake you leave behind you and how that impacts this community. > > One way I was taught to lessen influence was to defer my vote (in a votes I > kick off) until the end. This way others don't follow the leader in > response. It's not a strict rule at the ASF. It's a humble practice by > responsible Chairs. I can't agree more here. I was actually very surprised how much influence I have in this community and that people thinks like MINA is my personal project. Yeah, MINA is like a son or daughter to me, but it doesn't mean that it's mine. Again, I appreciate your raising valid concerns, and let me not forget the lessons I've learned recently from you and many other community members. Cheers, Trustin -- what we call human nature is actually human habit -- http://gleamynode.net/ -- PGP Key ID: 0x0255ECA6
