On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to >>>>> do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch >>>>> of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and >>>>> that. >>>> >>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is. >>>> Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this >>>> thread. >>>> >>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position >>>> within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time >>>> criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void. >>> >>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even >>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than >>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed >>> more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. >>> Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway... >> >> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to >> deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back >> when you were more involved. I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position >> as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things >> OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried. >> >> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable >> then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're >> trying to get across. > > My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. > We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, > and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting > service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, > but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent > marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty > different from most ASF projects. > > While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is > allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it)
You make this sound like a policy > , but we have historically allowed linking to resources that are not part of > OFBiz but that are about the project and add value for users and contributors. > > I have a problem with these recent complaints because: > > 1. there is no policy But hear you say there is no policy > 2. the people who are complaining personally, or others in a company they > work for, have done effectively the same thing Please elaborate > What will the net result be? There's only one possibility: conflict and > alienation in the community. > > This is little more than a total failure to collaborate and work together. > It's that simple. There's too little generosity and giving people a chance, > and there's too little recognizing one's own faults and being willing to > compromise. There's too much nit-picking and making distinctions where there > are none to justify one's own behavior and condemn someone else's. We either > learn how to get along or we won't get along. There is no "get along fairy." I was following you until this paragraph, but now you've lost me again. Surely you're not talking about the issues raised in this thread? There's a lot of accusations there but I can't respond because I have no idea what you're talking about. > People can deny this all they want, but it won't help fix the problem. I don't think anyone is capable of denying vague accusations directed at nobody in particular. > We could introduce more draconian policies and that will treat a symptom > (like no blogs, no docs, no nothing but real genuine news items voted on the > by PMC allowed on the home page), but it won't solve the real problem. What's wrong with the guidelines I proposed earlier in the thread? Regards Scott
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
