Michael Brohl <michael.br...@ecomify.de> writes: > I think depends-on is a point we already have discussed and this was > not my topic in the latest emails. My proposal to write up a concept > is adressed to the "big picture" you have described in [1], which > contains your statement: > > "Here is a *big* change that I am considering for OFBiz to fixes those > issues by leveraging the Java platform which already provides > everything that we need to fix those issues: ..." > > I was talking about this big change and the plan behind it. In the > initial discussion you gave a brief vision, which should be worked out > by the community to move forward. A vision is far from a concept the > community can decide on, which is my main point I expressed earlier.
If we failed to understand each other on the small picture, I doubt bringing the “big picture” will be lead to better result. The bigger the scope is the more likely it will end up in a “what if” tar pit. >> I don't see the point of continuing this unproductive discussion neither >> to proceed with a formal vote regarding the deprecation of >> “component-load.xml”, because whatever the result I have lost my faith >> in the capability of this community to succeed at handling the technical >> challenges that will enable OFBiz to stay relevant in the future. >> >> But this is fine. > > As I've sorted out the "depends-on" topic as the reason for the wish > for a concept/plan: do you also think that a discussion about the *big > change* is unproductive and is not necessary? Maybe a few month ago I would have been more patient and open to get into the requirement analysis details, but now that I have already spent all my energy into related heated debates without having any time left on realizing what I intended to work on initially, I am basically done. It could have been productive but in an alternate reality. > How do you do conceptual work with clients or colleagues? I believe > there is some kind of written documentation and clear decision points > involved at least for non trivial features/changes. Usually such discussion involves a whiteboard and a face-to-face discussion. Nereide has not a strong culture of written specifications and work in a very agile way. > I sincerely hope that we can sort out the resentments and find a way > to collaborate on the challenges that lay ahead. I am afraid that I am out of fuel here. -- Mathieu Lirzin GPG: F2A3 8D7E EB2B 6640 5761 070D 0ADE E100 9460 4D37
