Hi Ceki, Yes, the tone of my mail was harsh. I find it unfortunate that this was the case, but I also believe it was necessary. I also believe I can explain why, if you're willing to listen.
As I've already mentioned, I believe the current discussion is a manifestation of social issues -- the technical issues are real, and not unimportant, but by focusing solely on them, we would be ignoring (as has often been the case in the past) the effects of the social issues that are running alongside the discussion like a parallel thread. That would be unfortunate, because the social issues are real, they have real-world consequences, and they influence (strongly) the so-called "technical" decisions. Many people, perhaps most, dislike conflict. Confrontation and conflict are not activities that most people find pleasurable. One can see manifestations of that in the recent pleas for us to bring the conversation back under control, to count to ten, to take a deep breath, and so on. These are the reasonable attempts, by reasonable people, to defuse and avoid conflict. This approach is generally a good one -- conflict is a dangerous tool: it's easy to get hurt while using it, or hurt others, and it's a notoriously difficult tool to control. Moreover, it's a very difficult tool to *use* -- it takes an enormous amount of skill, tact and patience to achieve a useful, productive conflict -- it's nerve wracking. Given this, it's understandable that many people prefer to avoid using it altogether -- you will see this manifested in comments like "this just isn't worth it to me". Sometimes, unfortunately, conflict is *required*. Sometimes, it's simply the only tool that will do the job. Ceki, as I pointed out in my first message, you're a brilliant developer. log4j stands as a testament to your technical skills. But frankly, it's not my impression that your social skills are on exactly the same level (and I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's as diplomatic as I can be with that statement). I've been a lurker on both this and the user list for many years. I've watched arguments come and go, and observed your "management style" on many occasions. In my experience (and again, I am forced to be a bit blunt here), you don't respond well to subtle, quiet approaches. One has to hit you over the head with a verbal hammer, before you sit up and take notice. That's my opinion -- there are doubtless others. Nevertheless, that opinion explains the harsh tone of my first message. It seems to me that Curt has raised some important, and valid, points. Further, it seemed to me that you were attempting to steamroller over them, in a fashion that I have observed you do on more than one occasion in the past. To cite just two fairly recent examples, I only need two keywords: "LBEL" and "TRACE". I have repeatedly observed discussions with you, over technical issues, simply peter out because the protagonists in them lost the will to continue it. *Your* conversational style, in e-mails, is often rather harsh and confrontational, although you do not seem to be all that aware of it. Repeatedly, I have observed disagreements with you conclude, not because the people who were disagreeing with you had become convinced that your point of view was correct, but because they simply had lost the will to continue the discussion. You have, in my opinion, on more than one occasion in the past, achieved some technical "victory" simply by virtue of being stubborn and more willing than your opponent to "hang in there" in a conflict. You say "I also try to accommodate opinions diverging from mine and when it boils down to a matter of taste, I tend to privilege the opinions of others over my own." Well, that sounds good, but how do you define "taste"? The logic of the sentence I quote suggest that, when the issue is not one that you judge to be a question of "taste", you utilize some other algorithm to make a judgment. In my experience, that algorithm can be expressed as "I know what's best for log4J -- pipe down out there!" :-) Curt is, in my opinion, quite obviously trying to navigate this mine field *without* giving up. He is trying valiantly to maintain a conflict with you that he sees as necessary, *without* being quite as "harsh" as my first mail was. He is trying to manage the conflict without hitting you on the head with a verbal hammer. So I decided to give it try. I felt that, as an outsider, I might be able to get away with it. It was my hope that by doing so, I would provoke the other committers to chime in and say *something* -- ANYTHING -- rather than simply stand on the sidelines and hope that Curt could handle it alone. Given the reactions of some of the other folks on this list today, it seems I was successful. I believe this is an important discussion. What is the nature of the log4j project, as an open source effort? Is it like Linus and the Linux kernel -- others may participate, but ultimately, YOU make the decisions? That's certainly a valid model, but if that's how it works, you should SAY SO. However, if that's not how you want it to work, then this discussion is critical to validating and defining the "protocol" that others need to use to navigate disagreements with you. I have a lot of respect for you, and am a devoted fan of your software. I hope you will take my words seriously, but not personally, and that something positive will emerge from the discussion. Cheers, Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
