On 4/27/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dakota Jack wrote: > > Doesn't this kind of talk sound goofy to you all? Isn't this reference to > > the Apache Way sort of like a secret handshake and a silly hat? > > It's all that, yes, but it's also not very honest, I'd say. > > You see, the various scripture on the so-called "Apache Way" claims that > the ASF is run as a "meritocracy". What you see here is that the Struts > committers, after years of not achieving much, have invited in the > Webwork people with the intention of relabelling Webwork as Struts > Action 2 (when the existing Struts codebase is Struts Action 1). They > tacitly accept that the Webwork people ran the better project > technically, did the better work. > > Well, once you accept that the other people did the better work, and you > have a meritocracy, then those other people, who have more merit, they > run the show. > > The logic of this looks unassailble to me.
That's because you don't understand what you're talking about. The "meritocracy" idea at Apache is not about who does the work best. It's just about who does the work. You do the work, you make decisions. > So, by what basic principle does the existing Struts PMC remain in > control of the project when they accept that the other people did better > work? > > The only principle I see is the principle of incumbency or tenure. That's a problem with your vision. There are plenty of reasons: 1) it's more about doing the work than doing the work "better". 2) SAF 2/WebWork is still in incubation. It's not even actually part of Struts yet. 3) The Struts PMC currently oversees Shale, Tiles, and SAF 1. WebWork is not the only project here. > When people who did inferior work remain the managers of a project (and > ostensibly manage the people who did the better work) and this is by > virtue of incumbency or tenure, you don't have a meritocracy. And all you have is a strawman. Pay attention to how things actually are run around here. The PMC doesn't "manage" other committers. In practice, any committer's -1 is as meaningful as a PMC members. In fact, if a contributor who is not a committer has something to say about the code they've contributed, then the PMC will respect that too. In fact, i'm fairly sure these principles are actually codified somewhere in the "Apache scriptures". Them that do the work make the decisions. That's a meritocracy, if you ask me. Oh, and i seem to recall reading once in a Jakarta discussion that the ideal situation to the ASF is if all committers for a project are on the PMC that oversees the project. Does that sound like it has anything to do with who does better work? hmm. > So, actually, seriously applying the principles outlined about > meritocracy would necessarily imply an extreme shake-up in the Struts > project. However, in a typically ass backwards way, the "Apache Way" > stuff is being used as a rhetorical instrument to quell dissent -- > "don't rock the boat". As another example of ass backwards rhetoric, in > his "This has gone too far" post, Don Brown implies that the reason for > a lack of forward progress is the presence of that discussion. But that > is 180ยบ away. That and other such discussions came about precisely > because of the lack of forward progress. The causality is in completely > the other direction. > > Of course, it's clear why there's an attempt to shut down any discussion > that casts doubt on the way in which certain people are club members and > others are not. It has nothing to do with any "Apache Way". It can't be > openly discussed because, in reality, the incumbent managers of the > project do not have a leg to stand on. If they accepted the basic logic > of a meritocracy, Don and Ted and the rest would have to just resign and > let new people in. If they accepted your personally expedient definition of a meritocracy, then maybe. But Apache doesn't care what Jonathan Revusky thinks, because Jonathan Revusky doesn't do a lick of work for the ASF community (much like me). It is you and i who have no legs to stand on here. Don and Ted do tons of work, and therefore have all the legs they need and more. Just pay attention to this list for a week and that will be obvious. > Jonathan Revusky > -- > lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/ > lead anti-Apache troll, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > > > > > Let's say > > what the Struts Way is. It is not, I would strongly suggest even slightly > > related to the Apache Way. I am also strongly considering just never coming > > back here. I am getting just to sick of the plain and unvarinshed stupidity > > on this list. > > > > On 4/25/06, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>On 4/25/06, Frank W. Zammetti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>>On Tue, April 25, 2006 2:22 pm, Paul Speed said: > >>> > >>>> > >>>>Frank W. Zammetti wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>You are of course right about this. But, much like taking the ideas > >>>>>about > >>>>>inventory control and order processing and such from Dell and > >> > >>starting > >> > >>>>>your own business is possible, the likelihood that you would get > >>>>>anything > >>>>>but a small fraction of the attention and business that Dell gets is > >>>>>slim > >>>>>to none. > >>>> > >>>>Not to sidle in where I don't really belong but perhaps this last > >>>>sentence exemplifies the disconnect with "getting it"? If one wanted > >> > >>to > >> > >>>>take the code from an apache project and do something else with it > >> > >>then > >> > >>>>all they care about is the something else they want to do. It isn't > >>>>really a "business"... the code exists for the code's sake. > >>> > >>>You aren't chiming in where you don't belong... if your interested, you > >>>belong, at least as far as I'm concerned :) > >>> > >>>I think there is definitely something to your point, and the analogy may > >>>have been a bit flawed. However... > >>> > >>>I don't think it is accurate to think that ego doesn't play a part in > >> > >>just > >> > >>>about everything that just about everyone does. We all want to see our > >>>work benefit others. For most of us I believe its because we genuinely > >>>like the feeling we get when someone writes us and says "hey, your code > >>>really helped me, thank you!". I know speaking for myself, it makes my > >>>day when I get those eMails! Part of it is simply the ego stroke of > >>>someone essentially saying your work is worth something, but I don't > >>>believe that is the big factor for most people. I know it isn't for me, > >>>and I don't think it is for the Struts team. I think the thank you note > >>>means as much to them as it does me. > >>> > >>>If you agree with that, then the idea of forking the code and doing it > >>>with the belief that you aren't going to reach a wide audience because > >> > >>the > >> > >>>Apache version continues to be what people go to, is not appealing. In > >>>that regard, if we substitute ego for money in the analogy, I think it > >>>still works (although just saying ego is dangerous because as I tried to > >>>illustrate above, I think there is good ego and bad ego). > >>> > >>> > >>>>I'm not a committer but I've been following this list and the tomcat > >> > >>dev > >> > >>>>list since the last millennium... I think before there even was a > >> > >>struts > >> > >>>>1.0. I can't speak in an official capacity, I can't even pretend, but > >>>>here is my take on the "apache way". > >>> > >>>Isn't kind of interesting that there can be more than one "take" on it > >>>though? > >>> > >>> > >>>>For an open source project to exist you need code. All of apache > >>>>projects seem to exist to benefit the code... and by extension the > >>>>documentation. Though, even without documentation you still have the > >>>>code. All of the other stuff is extraneous or the life support system > >>>>depending on how you look at it. I think most of the "apache way" is > >>>>partially considering it to be extraneous... in a "if the code goes > >> > >>sour > >> > >>>>and you have nothing" sort of way. It's definitely symbiotic but > >>>>without the code, you have nothing. You might as well be chatting on > >>>>myspace.com. > >>> > >>>Hehe, considering some of the recent threads around here, posting on > >>>myspace.com might actually be safer! :-) LOL > >>> > >>> > >>>>So, the only reason to be a committer is to contribute to the > >>>>codebase... and all other committers have to live with each > >> > >>other. The > >> > >>>>only reason to be able to cast a binding vote is if you have a stake > >> > >>in > >> > >>>>the code... ie: are a committer. > >>> > >>>This is where I'm not sure I agree... why can you only have a stake in > >> > >>the > >> > >>>code, or in the community even, if you are a committer? And certainly > >> > >>the > >> > >>>"community" is often touted as the most important part of any ASF > >>>project... it's just that "community" in that context means the > >> > >>committers > >> > >>>only, which is where I disagree with the Apache Way I guess. > >> > >> > >>No, that's not correct. The community is, as you put it earlier, "anyone > >>who > >>has an active interest in how the project develops". So you actually agree > >>with the Apache Way. ;-) > >> > >>-- > >>Martin Cooper > >> > >> > >>Simply putting code out there and sharing your work is great, but going > >> > >>>back to a point I made some weeks ago, I beleive there is a > >> > >>responsibility > >> > >>>that comes along with it when you do that. Whether they should or not, > >>>people become dependent on the project... not in a cocaine kind of way > >> > >>of > >> > >>>course, but they are "counting on you" basically. That to me implies > >>>taking into consideration their needs and wants. Not above your own of > >>>course, but to some degree. > >>> > >>> > >>>>Bottom line: if a person isn't contributing to code and documentation > >> > >>in > >> > >>>>a way that the other committers are comfortable with then that person > >>>>shouldn't be a committer on the project. There is no other reason for > >>>>being a committer. > >>> > >>>This I absolutely agree with, and it was the reason my proposal didn't > >> > >>try > >> > >>>to change that. I would NEVER propose that the PMC not have the final > >> > >>say > >> > >>>in who is invited. It just to me seems right for that to be the case. > >>>But, I still see nothing wrong with being able to say "hey, PMC, we > >> > >>think > >> > >>>this guy or gal would be a good addition, please consider him". > >>> > >>> > >>>>My personal (and probably unneeded) opinion on the original subject: > >>>> > >>>> From my perspective, nominations don't matter so much... as I recall > >>>>someone could nominate themselves. If that person hasn't been > >>>>contributing code then there is no reason to think they will become a > >>>>committer. > >>> > >>>That is correct. I frankly was not aware that someone could do that, > >> > >>Ted > >> > >>>pointed it out to me. As I replied previously, that indeed covers the > >>>first principle of my proposal. I always prefer things like that be > >> > >>more > >> > >>>concrete, i.e., rules layed out in document form, but even failing that > >> > >>I > >> > >>>think the principle is followed, so I'm happy. > >>> > >>> > >>>>It would be nice if the process were a little more transparent as it > >>>>would be interesting to know who was proposed, accepted, rejected, > >> > >>etc. > >> > >>>>even if we didn't know why. (Though, even counter to that it was nice > >>>>to know that someone who contributed to another apache project and > >>>>stomped all over my contributed implementation because they didn't > >>>>bother to patch to head was at least a controversial nomination. But > >>>>that's sort of personal and isolated reason for wanting to see the > >> > >>dirty > >> > >>>>laundry.) > >>> > >>>I still have the concerns about people being embarassed by > >> > >>this. However, > >> > >>>I think the idea of a nominee accepting the nomination first is a fair > >>>idea. Putting aside the original proposal, how would that simple > >> > >>change, > >> > >>>along with opening the vote process discussion for all to see, sit with > >>>everyone? > >>> > >>> > >>>>I guess I have trouble seeing how things could be improved much by > >> > >>your > >> > >>>>proposal... especially since I understood there to be nothing wrong > >> > >>with > >> > >>>>nominations coming from anywhere. It was just explained to be easier > >>>>with a committer's support. I don't follow this list too closely, so > >>>>maybe I missed someone who has been contributing lots of stuff and > >> > >>still > >> > >>>>was overlooked. > >>> > >>>Agreed, once Ted explained that point to me, the proposal isn't quite as > >>>strong as I thought at first. I still think there is the issue of > >>>transparency that could do with further discussion, but it seems the > >>>nomination part of it is, more or less, already present. Codifying it > >>>would be nice, but I can live with it not being written anywhere. > >>> > >>>Thanks for commenting, you are always welcome as far as I'm concerned :) > >>> > >>> > >>>>-Paul > >>> > >>>Frank > >>> > >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back." > > ~Dakota Jack~ > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
