Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
Edward J. Yoon edwardy...@apache.org wrote:
I just wondered whether there is a central IRC channel for ASF incubator?..
There's none as far as I know
There is #apache-incubator, and on the rare occasion that I am in it, I am the
only one there. Dims used to hang
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:59 AM, Edward J. Yoon edwardy...@apache.org wrote:
...
I just wondered whether there is a central IRC channel for ASF incubator?..
There's none as far as I know, and IMO asynchronous communication on
this list works better for the large and loosely coupled Incubator
PMC
Hi,
I just wondered whether there is a central IRC channel for ASF incubator?
Thanks.
--
Best Regards, Edward J. Yoon
http://blog.udanax.org
http://twitter.com/eddieyoon
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr
Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
We don't use SF infrastructure.
--- Noel
But ASF has had infrastructure outages the last year, just like
for us and our
users for discussing smaller issues like bug-fixes or ideas in their
earliest stages (brainstorming). I say 'feel' but actually I should
say 'experienced', as we started out using only email list, opening up
an IRC channel only after several requests for that were made by our
users
Hi,
On 8/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If ASF is about people rather than procedures as is regularly stated,
a discussion about IRC in open development should be more about 'how'
and in the context of individual projects than simply denouncing the
technology altogether.
+1
-Original Message-
From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 3:29 PM
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
Hi,
On 8/17/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If ASF is about people rather than procedures
On 17/08/06, Jukka Zitting [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a key question in the how category is how to make IRC (or IM
in general) discussions easily accessible to people who weren't
there
... or who cannot be there.
-
To
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
We don't use SF infrastructure.
But ASF has had infrastructure outages the last year, just
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
We don't use SF infrastructure.
But ASF has had infrastructure outages
Oh, please. We've had a fraction of the outages experienced by either of
them, and if I take into account the number of times I have had network
splits, much less been unable to participate in real-time, on Freenode,
compared to the nicely asynchronous nature of e-mail, it isn't even a close
On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community
as a whole.
If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine.
If a individual doesn't like the method the project is
communicating with then it
is up to him to
On 16/08/06, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gee, now here is a sensitive subject. :-)
IRC BTW is very flaky if you don't have good connection (as most people
at AC currently experience). Mail is much better for that because it is
not as volatile as IRC.
Hmm, that's not
You mean like this:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/IRC+Log+Design+Discussion+26+May+2005
On 8/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jan Blok wrote:
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
The community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
published/ promoted however, does.
No it doesn't.
On 16 Aug 06, at 2:24 AM 16 Aug 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
better,
and produces a better quality/amount.
Hmm, IIRC, we already experimented on that issue and discovered the
result.
I think it was before your time, but
Jason,
Here's the text version:
http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Shaggy/A795.html
I had to look up the word turd :)
http://www.answers.com/turdr=67
-- dims
On 8/16/06, Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16 Aug 06, at 2:24 AM 16 Aug 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
agreed... without
On 16 Aug 06, at 9:40 AM 16 Aug 06, Dion Gillard wrote:
You mean like this:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/IRC+Log+Design+Discussion+26
+May+2005
That particular discussion had everyone who even vaguely knew what
the issue at hand was, even so you only know we talked about it
On 15 Aug 06, at 12:27 PM 15 Aug 06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Jan Blok wrote:
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Because the reality is
Gwyn Evans wrote:
Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
IRC BTW is very flaky if you don't have good connection (as most people
at AC currently experience). Mail is much better for that because it is
not as volatile as IRC.
Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
SF
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 15 Aug 06, at 12:27 PM 15 Aug 06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Jan Blok wrote:
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
design decisions are made on the mailing
Jason van Zyl wrote:
On 16 Aug 06, at 9:40 AM 16 Aug 06, Dion Gillard wrote:
You mean like this:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/IRC+Log+Design+Discussion+26+May+2005
That particular discussion had everyone who even vaguely knew what the
issue at hand was, even so you only
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
chain either. if a member
can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
timezone, we should be OK with that too.
not every member has to be able to participate
On 15/08/2006, at 4:16 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
chain either. if a member
can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
timezone, we should be OK with that
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Obvioulsy we aren't going to agree about this, which is fine, but I'd
still like to pick up on a couple of points that you raised;
we are talking about stopping people using what they are comfortable
with just
because we have a few people
+1 with these statement.
Finally one that really makes sense in my eyes
johan
On 8/15/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you can either acknowledge that some people prefer to use IRC
to communicate, and accept that while it isn't the best medium, or
the one
you would choose, it is the
On 15/08/2006, at 7:02 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
Obvioulsy we aren't going to agree about this, which is fine, but I'd
still like to pick up on a couple of points that you raised;
we are talking about stopping people using what they are
On Aug 15, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
chain either. if a member
can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
timezone, we should be OK with that too.
not every member has to be able to
Hi,
Ian Holsman wrote:
It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community as
a whole.
I don't agree with the above at all. The community is more than just
the sum of its members, but that sum is a large part of the community
nonetheless. A lot of times (too many in some
I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
real-time communication methods means quicker code
development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
to the development of the community.
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Regards Jan Blok
Jim Jagielski wrote:
I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering
As I and other have stated, IRC (and other real-time methods)
have their uses, but that it is too easy for them to
grow and expand beyond what they were originally set to
do.
This is, after all, not some willy-nilly consideration
that we just felt made sense. Instead, it's something
which has
Jan Blok wrote:
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
hard to
On 8/15/06, Ian Holsman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/
If a individual doesn't like the method the project is communicating
with then it
is up to him to convince the rest of the community/project to change.
It's not necessarily a question of 'like'. Even if someone likes IRC, they
may not
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
A: what do you think?
B: Well, like you said before...
Or
Hi,
There seems to me a huge difference between doing conversations about
code/design (with a possible conclusion to post a formal
change-proposal on the mailing list), and making the decision itself.
Jan
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Jan Blok wrote:
Hi,
What could be the problem of any
On 15/08/06, Jan Blok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Because the discussion which results in the proposal is
See my reply to your last post, conversations are OK, but discussions
resulting in proposals can quickly deteriorate into a short circuit
which excludes other participants from the real process, which isn't
about making a boolean decision but about reaching an informed
consensus.
On 15/08/06,
I am finding it somewhat unsettling that there is an increase
in the amount of off-list development being done (via IRC)
as well as a decreased awareness of WHY Email is the preferred
method.
Too many times I see things like Oh, we discuss things on
IRC and then bring it back to the list as if
supporting the logged IRC channel -
which usually has about half of the active committers and about 15 -
30 users online at any given time - that our list traffic got more
focussed and thus more valuable for following/ accessing the archives.
I'm not arguing email should not be the preferred method
in that email allows timezone
independent participation, and IMO, reading an IRC chat after the fact
is far different than being there. It's like reading a musical score -
far different than being there.
Like I stated earlier, I actually
believe that since we started supporting the logged IRC
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
published/ promoted however, does.
No it doesn't.It's exclusionary in that email allows timezone
independent participation, and IMO,
I'd like to add my support to those who, far more eloquently than I
could have done, have explained why IRC cannot be an inclusive or
truly public forum for discussion.
I have always taken the view that email is an essential characteristic
of the way the ASF works, and it is precisely because it
*if* used wisely.
;)
A question that remains now, as this has been an 'official' though
vote-less discussion on the incubator list, is whether a project that
utilizes an IRC channel as part of it's communication mix should be
regarded as a project that has some work to do to fit in ASF
you can either acknowledge that some people prefer to use IRC
to communicate, and accept that while it isn't the best medium, or
the one
you would choose, it is the one that group prefers.
OR
you can try to stifle their choice, and force them to use something
which
isn't natural to them
A regularly scheduled IRC chat does work but if IRC is a key part of
day-to-day execution then IMO that's a problem from the global
perspective. Of course YMMV.
Just depends on the people. Many people on the Wicket channel use
Wicket for their day jobs and work on the OSS part in the evenings.
-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
have to be logged on the mailing list anyways.
Not just logged. They actually need to be made there. You cannot arrive
at a decision on IRC and then just notify the project
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:03:52PM -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
because of time zone or other reasons can't attend.
Yup. And reading IRC archives sucks, so
On 8/10/06, Samisa Abeysinghe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:03:52PM -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
because of time zone or other reasons can't
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
no objections for the channel being there.
Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's
Craig L Russell wrote:
Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis) as
an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't like IRC
so much because it is not available to those of us who because of time
zone or other reasons can't attend.
No - mostly
@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
no objections for the channel being there.
Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's
Hi,
On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some
basis) as
an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
like IRC
so much because it is not available to those of us who because
i think in general it works out well. we formulate and refine ideas on irc
for a couple of hours and then post a summary to the devel list. after a few
hours of real time communication the idea is usually flashed out enough to
be a good base for a longer/slower-paced discussion on the list.
I
On 9 Aug 06, at 9:06 PM 9 Aug 06, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Craig L Russell wrote:
Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some
basis) as
an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
like IRC
so much because it is not available to those of us who
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 18:12 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
in wicket we use irc quiete a lot. we dont post all transcripts to the list
because in general they are too noisy to be of any use to anyone. we do have
them available for browsing on the web [1] though. we also have a search
engine that
56 matches
Mail list logo
