On Wednesday, 12 October 2005, at 10:23:36 (+0900), Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> only from those not directly concerned witht he issues. nathat said > early on - he doesnt care EXCEPt that he didnt get any chance to > discuss the issues earlier on because of lack of communication from > simon's end. i dont see anger and frustration. i see mild > disappointment. Well, let's not get into a discussion of semantics. There are emotions involved, and they are negative. :) > i have scoled those basically wanting to veto someones code. in a > separate tree. in a prototype sandpit. it's like defending freedom > of speech, but within the project. freedom of code. No one was wanting to veto their code. Our assertions are as follows: (1) Discussion should have PREceded the commit of the new tree. (2) Actions by those involved with ETK have been, at least in appearance, questionable. (3) The code should be removed from E's CVS until such time as a more constructive solution to the issues at hand can be reached. I still stand by those assertions. You are welcome to disagree. > it was - cvs commit logs. there are automated systems in place. "Etk first commit" is not communication sufficient to the points I stated. > because it's turing into a "we want to kick simon an hisham out > because we dont like a piece of code that competes with older code". Again, nobody said that. > i'm doubting communication is working with you - even if i put it in > plain black and white that i do value - highly - the work on ewl, > you turn around and say i don't. (read back through the > thread). thats a point at which i give up. I responded to that complaint. > then why is it i went to lengths to clarify that it is not intended > as such and not meant to be such and i specifically wanted to stop > this lines of reasonsing before it began. but you want to keep going > down that line anyway. So that it would be addressed for those who might feel that way. And it has been. > even in the mail link - you have communication there. from simon's > end he believes things didnt move with ewl to improve, nathan > believes simon wasnt communicating back - there is a breakdown in > communication, but that's not a reason to go lynch. Nor *was* that the reason. (Not that I agree with your label of "lynching.") Let me state it again: Simon took unilateral action without discussing the situation with those most affected by it (Nathan in particular). That was WRONG. You may or may not agree; that's your right. But that's my opinion. I feel he mishandled the situation, and I called him on it. > i did - it was the "i dont think i can do this with ewl's design and > that means i want to change large parts and nathan doesnt think we > need to". it was already a disagreement. According to Nathan, there was NO SUCH DISAGREEMENT. You're listening to Simon and concluding their was discussion of the issues at hand. I'm listening to Nathan and saying their wasn't. Neither of us knows for sure, so let's ask the ones who do. Simon? Nathan? Let's hear it. > simon said he sent patches but didnt see them committed. its a > breakdown of communication here. I'd like to hear what Nathan has to say on this. Were patches received? Were they delayed? ignored? refused? and why? > ok - fine - soemoen doesnt like me. i am not going to waste my time > agonising over why. :) But we both agree that there's a big difference in solution. If you smelled funny, I'd hose you down (with VB, of course). If your mom ate my last doughnut, I'd have to kill someone! :-) > no he hasn't (recieved any really detailed answer) but then again > simon has been fairly quiet on the subject. but as simon said - he > sent patches, they didnt go in, there was some breakdown and he > decided to fix his own problems his own way instead of argue about > them i guess. Clearly there was a breakdown, and clearly the two sides disagree on its nature. Now that we've identified this, I'd hope that Simon would step up and be willing to iron it out. So far I've been quite disappointed in his (lack of) response, but I'm hoping that's simply due to his lack of connectivity. > "Hardly. Another solution (and my favorite, by the way) is that ETK > be removed from CVS. You can start your own project on SourceForge if..." That doesn't say "remove them from the project." It says "remove it from CVS." See above for clarification. > ok. very laudible goals. but lets not do it with beatings. :) lets chill > actually let people talk. :) Well, you'll be happy to know that I spoke with Hisham about discussing the EWL/ETK issues with Simon, Nathan, and Dan on the E-devel list, and he agreed. Hopefully the other parties will agree also. The sooner we get everyone talking, the sooner we can get this thing fixed and move on. On Wednesday, 12 October 2005, at 19:30:14 (-0400), Jose O Gonzalez wrote: > Perhaps so... I'd defer to raster and mandrake and you on that. Well, no one that I know of has heard from mandrake in months. We're kinda worried. > As I *dimly* recall, this was around the time of the unveiling of > e16 and eterm (my first experience with e was around e13 and I can't > recall if eterm was around then), Eterm has been around since 1997. The first public release corresponded with the release of Enlightenment DR0.10, give or take a few days. On Tuesday, 11 October 2005, at 12:01:25 (-0600), Jason Smith wrote: > I am not a developer so I am sorry if I misunderstand what is > happening here, but from my perspective this is something that Simon > and Nathan/other EWL developers need to work out. You tell raster > "Then stop trying to get in the middle" Shouldn't everyone take this > advice? I'll say it again: If it were going to happen on its own, it already would've. ETK going into CVS unannounced and the resultant backlash has made it clear that more communication is needed. Now that we've gotten everyone's attention, folks will encourage and insist on better communication. Consider it a way to shut me up if that helps encourage you. :-) On Thursday, 13 October 2005, at 15:08:53 (+0300), Valtteri Vainikka wrote: > Agreed... I´ve tried to stay away from this, but I just can´t ignore > these mails anymore. While I understand there are various problems > and all this hasn´t exactly gone the right way, I don´t think any > alternative path would have been possible, given the personalities > and viewpoints involved. This thread, while it actually started out > in a very civil way, has turned into a more or less immature > lynching festival (and is a good example how internal communication > should not go). This "lynching" comparison is really getting old. I know a number of black folks who would quite happily give you a first-hand demonstration of what REAL lynching is. Of course, you would not survive said demonstration, but then that's the point, is it not? > I would mostly call this thread a clash of personalities - the > actual matter itself doesn´t really seem to be the focus in this > thread, not anymore at least.. I continue to focus on the matter(s) at hand: Courtesy and respect for EWL's authors, communication of intent, cooperation instead of duplication (or at least more of the former and less of the latter), and open discussion and communication rather than IRC and direct e-mails. > but with comments like ""Hardly. Another solution (and my favorite, > by the way) is that ETK be removed from CVS. You can start your own > project on SourceForge if..." it´s hardly far fetched to say certain > individuals (this doesn´t mean that some people haven´t kept a > constructive attitude) here aren´t exactly being constructive. Why do I feel that ETK should be removed from CVS? See above. Why did I phrase it that way? Because Simon's response (his ONLY one thus far, I might add) basically said the following: "ETK is here to stay whether you all like it or not, and it will compete directly with EWL whether you like it or not. We're not going to give up or compromise our position. The best you can hope for is theme compatibility someday." > While everyone has the right to hold on to his own personality, > being blunt and honest, not to mention never backing down, is not > really the way things work in the end, especially not in a volunteer > open source project. We will agree to disagree on that point. *** Other than to correct further misinformation and facilitate discussions between the two groups, this will be my last public commentary on the situation. Michael -- Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX) http://www.kainx.org/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/ Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "What if I fell 15 stories? What if my weight wasn't enough to kill me? What if I were sticky enough to walk the ceiling? Maybe I could live through this." -- Mighty Joe Plum, "Live Through This" ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
