On Jan 27, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > On 1/26/2011 11:56 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> No, the discussion is not, but your response here is "inherently >> bureaucratic". >> >> You wrote: "Your suggestions sound fair to me. Maybe after the 11.x branch >> is created we can discuss these ideas." >> >> That's some serious push-back... MAYBE after the 11.x branch we can DISCUSS >> these ideas? >> >> Hints at bureaucracy are still bureaucracy. >> >> To take this to its logical conclusion: "Following the 11.x branch, which is >> a date not yet decided, the Committee will consider the discussion of your >> ideas. Should the Committee decide that discussion of said ideas is not in >> the best interest of the Project, the Committee will not discuss your ideas. >> The Committee does not consider the discussion of any idea from any source >> to be a commitment to act on said idea. The Committee hereby reserves the >> right to complain and push back and if necessary commit-war against any idea >> deemed improper or not in the best interest of the Project. The Committee >> further hereby disclaims any official status regarding these statements." >> >> This is a great definition of the term from Wikipedia: "organization >> characterized by hierarchy, fixed rules, impersonal relationships, rigid >> adherence to procedures, and a highly specialized division of labor." >> >> Is that a clear enough explanation of the community patterns I find less >> than desirable? > > I found some definitions of bureaucracy too: > > "What might be nice is to restrict > access to the framework, and maybe even have people acting as moderators for > different parts of the framework. For example, if you can't make any changes > to > the Entity Engine without going through Adam Heath then this may slow things > down a bit, but there would be a review of the design and implementation of > every new feature or fix and that would lead to more consistency and quality > in > the design and implementation of the tool, making it hopefully easier to use > and > safer to rely on." -David Jones, OFBiz Dev mailing list, March 2010 > (http://markmail.org/message/kitdbna5lltj5jyp) > > "The idea is for everything to go > through a single moderator. Contributions from others may be accepted, but > never > directly and only through the moderator. The project may have multiple > moderators each responsible for a different part of the whole, but nothing > will > go into the project without centralized review." -Dav id Jones, OFBiz User > mailing list, March 2010 (http://markmail.org/message/tkpzmvbqxb75mnks) > > I'll leave it to the community to compare what I found with Wikipedia's > definition.
Maybe you should stop trying to attack and start trying to understand. Consider how multiple projects fits into this. -David
