From: "David E Jones" <d...@me.com>
Please don't attack me Adrian, I didn't attack you. This is entertaining
though, isn't it? I especially like how in your message
full of attacks message you ask for no more of the same. I reread my message
below and I don't see any personal attack to you. So,
where is this "drama" coming from? Am I missing something here? You can
misrepresent things all day, but only the less careful
readers will ever believe you.
I'm pretty sure I've asked this before, but could you please stop using my name
to try to add legitimacy to your ideas? Just leave
me out of it. It's that simple.
If it's a good idea, present it and it will stand on its own. The quality of an
idea has nothing to do with the person who
expresses it or the people who agree with it.
BTW, I don't think it's only you by any means. In general collaboration seems
to have mostly broken down in the project. There are
lots of people still committing to the same code repository, but not many
instances any more of people discussing things and
planning together, or at least soliciting feedback, and then having multiple
people work together to implement based on the plans.
The project in general is still doing fine and it is growing and things are
getting fixed, but collaboration isn't here any more.
I don't totally agree. The new lookups are a good example, the jQuery branch is
another. We exchanged at the beginning and then
continued/continue to work together
But yes, less community exchanges in general, I agree. On my own I remember the
fruitful exchanges we had on GeoLocation, for
instance. Also maybe it because you are less invoved Davis (it's not a
reproach, only a fact ;o)
Any why is this? Is it because of the people involved? Is it because of the way
the community is organized? Is it because the
whole concept of running this type of project (no central control, no agreed on
spec to implement to) was flawed from the
beginning? Is it something else entirely?
I have not enough time to expand on this, but I don't think it's specifically
related to people, more the way we are organized and
certainly the scope of the project.
For instance, take the wiki. I had an idea this afternoon. Remember David when
you hired Les Austin? Could we not do the same thing
on behalf of the community. This would mean we bring some money in order to
hire a Confluence specialist some days to organize
our documentation. There have been ideas on the user lists recently (notably to
group spaces as it's now possible to handle
authorization at the page level). I really believe a better documentation would
help much the community. For instance the search
(one space would greatly help) and the index in Google are bad (Export is the
solution but still problematic as I said)... Of course
we would need to agree on what to do before... The idea behind is to look more
professionnal (look at our "concurrents")
Jacques
I don't know...
-David
On Sep 17, 2010, at 12:28 AM, Adrian Crum wrote:
--- On Thu, 9/16/10, David E Jones <d...@me.com> wrote:
On Sep 16, 2010, at 12:37 PM, Adrian Crum wrote:
On 9/16/2010 8:18 AM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "Adrian Crum" <adri...@hlmksw.com>
This description of events isn't entirely
true.
David didn't reject Andrew's design, the
community in general felt
excluded from the design process. David simply
asked that we discuss
the design before code was committed.
Yes exactly, thanks for clarifying Adrian, I knew
I had left some points
behind
The security redesign was the outcome of that
discussion. As far as I
know, David and I agreed on the final design,
but interest in it fell
off. I ended up being the only person working
on it. Since then, David
has included the security redesign in his new
project.
I tought there were some stumbling blocks, notably
when merging your works.
We only disagreed on the workflow. David wanted to
commit all the changes at once and I wanted to commit them a
little at a time.
I guess you found a way to get me to comment on these
things... just claim to speak for me and then do so
incorrectly.
There were other disagreements, but I guess they were not
sufficient to be memorable.
BTW, the ExecutionContext stuff was a more significant
refactoring and cleanup intended to facilitate multi-tenant
features as well as make the runtime context sensitive
security possible. On the cleanup side it would eliminate
the need for the various ThreadLocal variables that exist in
the framework, and would help keep all of the junk out of
the context and parameters Maps (try logging a context now
to see what I mean).
I wasn't speaking for you, I was recalling the events as I remember them.
I agree we had other disagreements at the time, but they weren't related to the
security redesign (from my perspective) so I
didn't mention them. The motivation in my reply was to correct some
misrepresentations that were made, hopefully without stirring
up even more controversy.
Based on Jacques comments, and comments I've received from others in personal
conversations, I believe the reason interest in the
security redesign dropped off was because of all of the drama surrounding the
development of it. Even now, when new interest is
being expressed in the security redesign, more drama is being thrown into it.
That's unfortunate - because the project suffers as
a result.
The drama comes from you assigning feelings and motivations to me that aren't
there. The truth is, I'm not trying to attack you
or goad you.
In other words, get over yourself. You aren't some prize target that I'm trying
to take down.
To the rest of the community I ask that you to please restrict the conversation
of the security redesign to the design itself.
Maybe then we can see some progress.
-Adrian
