On 8/12/2009, at 10:16 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:
Hi Scott,If that was offending to you i apologize for that. I was under the impression that the Eclipse license was allowed and you, you stated it yourself, brought up license issues without being a license expert and gave me the burden to solve it also being far from a license expert.
A quick review from my perspective:- You were provided with a link to the ASF's licensing explanation page way back on the 11th Nov, that link provided a clear explanation of how the EPL should be treated. You did not attempt to clarify with the community the implications of the ASF guidelines. - Sometime around the 20th you again asked if it was okay to commit birt to the trunk and were again reminded of the licensing issues, I reviewed the code in full from a licensing point of view and pointed out the specific problems. You did not respond. - At the start of this month you again asked if it was okay to commit birt to the trunk and basically said that the licensing problems were not problems at all, even though you had made no attempt to clarify the licensing situation with the community. - A few days later you asked for my help in finding a way for the birt project to modify their license so that we could use their source code. I explained that I had no idea how to do that and recommended you contact the ASF legal mailing, at which point you seemed to get annoyed at me for my apparent unwillingness to help.
I think much of this could have been avoided if you had made a greater effort to interact with the community during the earlier reviews and to understand the issues that were raised. As you mentioned below, all seems to be solved now and I am not trying to attack you by pointing these things out, I'm only pushing this issue because I would prefer it if things went more smoothly in the future.
For every new function I introduce there is a lot of opposition always by the same people which sometimes gives me the feeling that simply reasons are found to block my contributions.
I want to make it quite clear to you and to everybody else that my opinions and comments are my own and no one else's. No one has ever attempted to influence the way I interact with the community and I can assure you that such an attempt would fail. I review OFBiz commits because I care about the project and for the most part I do it on my own time. Your contributions are as welcome to me as anyone else's, but just as with anyone else I will respond if I see problems or if they fail to follow best practices and I welcome this same treatment from the community to my own work (not because I think my work is infallible, I'm quite sure people could find problems with my commits and identifying those problems would help me improve my work). My reviews are not an attempt to attack your contributions and I do not sit here waiting for you to commit something so that I can pick it apart.
Perhaps the main problem here is that i put business reasons much higher than technical reasons and most people here are technical.
IMO it is impossible to effectively solve business problems without respecting the technical foundation of those solutions, attempting to do so will result in a leaning tower. Anyway, differing opinions should be treated as an opportunity to find a better solution and not as a recipe for disaster.
All seems now be solved, and i appreciate you technical view and comments on the system.
And I do, honestly, appreciate you and your team's contributions.
Concerning my comment about relationships, had nothing to do with you, just by the way way people in general treat each other here in the mailing list, which is much different here in Thailand and has its disadvantages too. Probably nothing is perfect in this world.
Understood, thank you for clarifying and I apologize for my rash interpretation.
Regards Scott
Regards, Hans On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 21:46 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:On 8/12/2009, at 4:34 PM, Hans Bakker wrote:Thank you Scott for the statement. For the record, all work on the Birt branch was done by Chattree, a colleague of mine here at Antwebsystems. I just helped him a bit because the tough western (mailinglist) mentality is not really compatible with the Asian culture where relationships are the most important value.If you're implying that I've treated our relationship with less value than was appropriate then I take offense to that. I'd like to remind you that I spent some of my spare time reviewing your work instead of working on things that I am interested in and you proceeded to ignore my review even though you requested it. When you finally didacknowledge my comments you treated them as some sort of unfair burdenthat I was placing on you. I found your actions to be rude, very annoying and hardly indicative of your desire to have a good working relationship. So for you to sit here and attempt to take the high ground when you have been the agitator during these discussions is a little bit rich for my liking. Regards ScottRegards, Hans On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 08:25 +1300, Scott Gray wrote:Hi Ruppert Hans ended up removing the code which was of concern so the issues that I suggested he discuss with legal are no longer present. Regards Scott On 8/12/2009, at 4:49 AM, Tim Ruppert wrote:Did all of this go to legal like was requested? If not, then it's a-1 to commit this to the trunk. Cheers, Ruppert -- Tim Ruppert HotWax Media http://www.hotwaxmedia.com o:801.649.6594 f:801.649.6595 On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:03 AM, Hans Bakker wrote:Hi Scott, had some time to look at it this weekend? if not more objections i plan to commit the birt branch to the trunk this week. Thank you for your time spend on this subject. Regards, Hans On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 01:18 +1300, Scott Gray wrote: .....Did you look at the New Revision: 886087 where we solved your last concerns?Briefly and I liked the approach, I'll take another pass over thewhole thing on the weekend.-- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates-- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates-- Antwebsystems.com: Quality OFBiz services for competitive rates
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
