Sorry Adrian, you're speaking for me, not based on anything I've written, and you couldn't be more wrong.
The point is not to be able to make innovative changes without discussion and planning, the point is to be able to setup the project structure to facilitate innovative changes and insulate users of the project from the side effects of those changes. With the way OFBiz is structured now (both the software and the community) that is REALLY hard to do. What I am pursuing now should make that a lot easier because of a totally different structure and ecosystem. If OFBiz moves in that direction as well, that's great. Just in case it wasn't clear, the backwards part is that you think I'm trying to get away from user feedback and discussion. That couldn't be further from the truth. I'm trying to create an environment that places the concerns of users of the software first, including users who are developers who want to build something with it or on it. About the consensus idea... are you implying that consensus is ever reached in OFBiz? Perhaps lazy consensus where no one is willing to get into a commit war or invest a lot in correcting someone else's work, but a consensus? Almost never. And, BTW, stop speaking for me. You're generally hostile when doing so and trying to make me look bad. I've asked you this before as you've done it many times. It's really childish behavior, so stop it. I haven't been pulling many punches lately, and it seems like it may be opening the way for discussion to happen that have been needed for a LONG time. I might as throw out another controversial opinion: the current PMC and committer groups need to be cut back a LOT. Some are not active and won't mind leaving, others are somewhat active and/or like their place in the project and wouldn't want to go. We all probably have out opinions about who we'd like to see leave. Guess what one of my opinions is? -David On Jan 27, 2011, at 8:22 AM, [email protected] wrote: > One thing that is important to remember is that there is a difference between > real obstacles to innovation and imagined ones. > > David expressed frustration with the inability to innovate due to push back > from a few people who insist on backward compatibility. That is a real > obstacle. I am hopeful my appeal to compromise will help us get past that one. > > He is also nostalgic about the "good old days" when a handful of committers > were free to make any changes they wanted with little or no discussion, or > any consideration of the impact those changes would have on the user base. He > sees discussion, planning, and finding a consensus as an obstacle to > innovation. That obstacle is imagined. > > Like I said in a previous reply, there is nothing prohibiting David from > innovating in OFBiz - his ideas have been discussed before and we all seemed > to agree that they would be good things to do. > > David's decision to give up on participating in this community has nothing to > do with a failure on the PMCs part. > > -Adrian > > Quoting Jacopo Cappellato <[email protected]>: >> The primary goal of the PMC, and the community in general, should be that of >> creating the perfect environment to facilitate contributions from people >> like David, and limit/review/improve the contributions from other less >> blessed contributors: it seems like all our efforts are obtaining the exact >> opposite result. > >
