On 1/27/2011 7:28 PM, David E Jones wrote:
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.
I understand completely. Maybe you should stop imagining non-existent
bureaucracies, non-existent obstacles, and non-existent attacks, and try
to contribute something positive to the community.
The path has been cleared for you to fix the things you listed as being
wrong with OFBiz. Go for it! I'm available to help.
-Adrian
