[Dri-devel] Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion aboutthe future of X
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 14:26, Mark Vojkovich wrote: This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed even more. I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit access, and some have refused and some have accepted. The consensus of who gets commit access has always been - if they show competance at sending patches in, then after a period of time, no doubt they'll get it. It's the same as the DRI, but with more of a prolonged period of evaluating that persons patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most. Keith, I'm sure you've seen some pretty shady patches come your way so you understand that review by qualified people is essential. I believe we do need more commiters, particularly in some parts of the tree, but I also believe that this commit access should be granted only to people with sufficient expertise, not merely to people who have a vested interest. I know we have poor coverage in some parts of the tree, and I think that needs to be fixed. What if there is nobody qualified? I've been working on the FreeBSD DRM for about 2 years now. It was my first experience with kernel code and with XFree86 code. I had never worked on graphics before. I've made countless incredibly stupid mistakes. But nobody else was willing to work on it, and finding help with most of my questions has been impossible. At this point, I'm the only one who knows about the FreeBSD DRM who is willing to work on it. Because it's DRI related I have been granted DRI CVS access and can do work there. But if I had been working on something like this through XFree86 for this long without CVS access, I would most likely have moved on to another project a while ago. -- Eric Anholt[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://people.freebsd.org/~anholt/dri/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: The Definitive IT and Networking Event. Be There! NetWorld+Interop Las Vegas 2003 -- Register today! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?keyn0001en ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[Dri-devel] Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion aboutthe future of X
Keith Whitwell wrote: XFree86 BOD wrote: It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a member of the XFree86 Core Team. What specifically does the XFree86 bod see as being wrong with the idea of a 'by-invitation-only group' managing X server development? Isn't that exactly what the core team xfree86 BOD have been doing all along? Maybe the core team bod could explain what is being hinted as a new spirit of openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86 development process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to the sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead to this announcement? It's always a shock to see that what is meant to tease when written comes out looking more like a direct attack when read back... Anyway, let me be explicit: I'm teasing, but there is a serious point buried in there. Keith --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC. Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
[Dri-devel] Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion aboutthe future of X
Alan Hourihane wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +, Keith Whitwell wrote: XFree86 BOD wrote: It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a member of the XFree86 Core Team. What specifically does the XFree86 bod see as being wrong with the idea of a 'by-invitation-only group' managing X server development? Isn't that exactly what the core team xfree86 BOD have been doing all along? Not exactly. Long ago, that was probably right, but these days you could probably see the Core Team as a bunch of committers to the CVS, obviously with their own areas of technical knowledge as well. And yes, we've met on occasion, but more in the reality of a coding frenzy to work on what we wanted to work on. It's a spin thing. Core team sounds exclusionary, where as Developers who have been granted CVS access sounds pretty inclusive... and even more inclusive if there is regular induction of developers into that group. More recently to talk about XFree86 5.0, of which I've sent what I wrote down to this list already. Doesn't this contradict your assertion that you're just a bunch of committers? Yes, I appreciate your post today, but would it (or the openness post) have happened if keithp was still a happy core teamer? As for the BOD list, the Core Team doesn't know what goes on within that list either, not that it bothers me at all. I wonder what the BOD is for. It could be clearer. Maybe the core team bod could explain what is being hinted as a new spirit of openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86 development process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to the sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead to this announcement? You'd be surprised if you saw what is actually discussed on the Core Team lists. Not much at all, apart from recent events that led up to this email. I have to say, that a lot of the Core Team is still in the dark on why Keith decided to divert his attention away from XFree86 in the way that has transpired. We're as much in the dark as you Keith Whitwell (thought I'd better add your surname to avoid confusion). It's hard to see that keithp was unhappy about cvs access as he obviously had it himself. Similarly he would have been privy at least to the core team masonic plotting, so that wouldn't have been a big issue for him either. I have to wonder if it was he who originated the idea of a split, or whether he was approached by the evil, frustrated vested interests and asked to lead a more responsive fork, that would allow them to expand the pool of committers more easily. From mharris' diary, I wouldn't be suprised - although it doesn't seem like he personally had any knowledge of a coming fork. It's hard to see what other issues there are: cvs access, maybe personality, what else? The broad direction of the project, but what does that mean? [snip] OK - some concrete proposals, with cynicism turned off: - Make BOD minutes public That would be good, if I knew there were any minutes, which I don't think there are. There should be. I believe it's mandatory for minutes to be kept of such meetings. - Open all core team meetings to the public, and if feasible post minutes, transcripts or even audio feeds. As for my 'XFree86 5.0 TODO' email, that's what was intentional. I recognize the intention, and appreciate what you're doing. - Extend CVS access to regular contributors. Use scripts or whatever to control access to subtrees if you want. This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed even more. I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit access, and some have refused and some have accepted. The consensus of who gets commit access has always been - if they show competance at sending patches in, then after a period of time, no doubt they'll get it. It's the same as the DRI, but with more of a prolonged period of evaluating that persons patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most. Who and when were the last 5 or so members of the core team admitted? Or should I say: who when were the last 5 people granted cvs access? (It's so much less threatening that way). Who decided? To take an example from thin air... mharris has been working on xfree for yonks - years, I'm sure - afaik dilligently responsibly - when should he expect cvs access? Will it still be useful to him by then? - Consider dropping the
[Dri-devel] Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion aboutthe future of X
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote: On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +, Keith Whitwell wrote: XFree86 BOD wrote: It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a member of the XFree86 Core Team. What specifically does the XFree86 bod see as being wrong with the idea of a 'by-invitation-only group' managing X server development? Isn't that exactly what the core team xfree86 BOD have been doing all along? Not exactly. Long ago, that was probably right, but these days you could probably see the Core Team as a bunch of committers to the CVS, obviously with their own areas of technical knowledge as well. And yes, we've met on occasion, but more in the reality of a coding frenzy to work on what we wanted to work on. More recently to talk about XFree86 5.0, of which I've sent what I wrote down to this list already. As for the BOD list, the Core Team doesn't know what goes on within that list either, not that it bothers me at all. The secret society aspect of the core and BOD is really not accurate. It's not really clear to me that our BOD does anything at all. In fact, other than the recent business with Keith Packard, the last time I remember them doing anything was the statement on XFree86's official opinion on the X.org X11R6 licesing fiasco. I don't see how any publicly elected BOD is going to change anything. The simple matter is that there's seems little for an advisory board to do. I'd just assume keep our current useless BOD than get a new useless BOD. XFree86's direction IS dictated primarily by its contributors. The fact that it's not perceived that way is merely a marketing problem. I'm not being cynical. I just don't know how to communicate things in a way that's not direct so that's the way it comes out. I will second Alan's statement that the core is really not much more than the list of people which have CVS commit access. Being a core member is somewhat symbolic. It is granted only after a long history of significant (actually substantial is more accurate) contributions to the XFree86 project. There are more people being considered for core status now. Think of it as the five-year plaque. Personally I am in favor of changing the core structure to behave more like Linux kernel's lieutenants. It doesn't really change the operation of the core much - it mostly just changes the names you assign to it. In my opinion XFree86 behaves much like Linux kernel already, it's just that the execution is flawed, particuarlly where application of patches are concerned, and that's something I'd like to see us work on. Maybe the core team bod could explain what is being hinted as a new spirit of openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86 development process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to the sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead to this announcement? You'd be surprised if you saw what is actually discussed on the Core Team lists. Not much at all, apart from recent events that led up to this email. I have to say, that a lot of the Core Team is still in the dark on why Keith decided to divert his attention away from XFree86 in the way that has transpired. We're as much in the dark as you Keith Whitwell (thought I'd better add your surname to avoid confusion). I too am in the dark. I do not understand why Keith Packard, a core member himself, chose to not use that position of influence within the XFree86 project to fix these problems. I don't see how a fork would do anything but cause resentment and deprive both projects of a focused effort. Please forgive my somewhat cynical tone... The best strategy to fight a fork would be to open up XFree thereby make forking unnecessary. It seems like that is whats being attempted, but can the leopard change its spots? Sometimes I wonder if it knows it has them. Apart from when I was a teenager, I can remember having spots. OK - some concrete proposals, with cynicism turned off: - Make BOD minutes public That would be good, if I knew there were any minutes, which I don't think there are. - Open all core team meetings to the public, and if feasible post minutes, transcripts or even audio feeds. As for my 'XFree86 5.0 TODO' email, that's what was intentional. - Extend CVS access to regular contributors. Use scripts or
[Dri-devel] Re: [forum] Re: [XFree86] Invitation for public discussion aboutthe future of X
- Extend CVS access to regular contributors. Use scripts or whatever to control access to subtrees if you want. This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed even more. I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit access, and some have refused and some have accepted. The consensus of who gets commit access has always been - if they show competance at sending patches in, then after a period of time, no doubt they'll get it. It's the same as the DRI, but with more of a prolonged period of evaluating that persons patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most. Keith, I'm sure you've seen some pretty shady patches come your way so you understand that review by qualified people is essential. I believe we do need more commiters, particularly in some parts of the tree, but I also believe that this commit access should be granted only to people with sufficient expertise, not merely to people who have a vested interest. I know we have poor coverage in some parts of the tree, and I think that needs to be fixed. Yes, but it's also important to grant people responsibility that may challenge them. Many will rise to it. And, you could use scripts to keep people to their assigned areas -- a particular driver, for instance. Though I think people will respond better to being trusted than being subjected to rigid restrictions. I guess this is the big issue from another side: XFree86 doesn't seem to trust anyone - there's a lot of fear concern about what might possibly in the worst circumstances go wrong as a result of allowing someone cvs access. My experience is people respond to being trusted and will go out of their way to try and live up to that trust. - Consider dropping the BOD and core team ideas in favour of an elected committee. Examine recent trends in managing other large projects. Just some somewhat disconnected statements: I think that elected commiters is a bad idea. I agree. This idea probably arose from my confusion between the concepts of 'advisory board', 'core team', and 'committers'. I have a low opinion of the usefulness of advisory boards. Sure. But I would argue an elected one is better than the current approach. I have a strong respect for competent developers. I suppose that make me an elitist, but no more that you are, I suppose. We all love 'em. I think one of our main problems is that we've linked CVS commit access with the 5 year plaque, and I think we should emulate Linux kernel's development model more closely instead. This is pretty much on target. If nothing else changes, expanding the commit rights to 2x or 3x the number of people currently with that access would be a signal that xfree was learning from this debacle. I recognize that a lot of progress to openness has occurred, but there remains only a very small number of people who can commit code to what is a very large source base. One result is that you end up with things like the dri tree, another result is that competent developers just decide they can make a bigger impact elsewhere go away. It would be interesting to understand how the linux kernel methodology would apply here. I think there are a lot of special circumstances that keeps that magnificant house of cards standing - I'm not sure I'd want to bet on being able to reconstruct that network of trust relationships from scratch. But it's fun to think about... Would the whole core team be Linus, or would they give up commit access and funnel everything to David? ... or should we just use the original Linus for this too? :- OK, maybe not. Keith --- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC. Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC. Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for? http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en ___ Dri-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
