Jon Stevens wrote:
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to
stop.
I changed my mind.
How about discussing what to do
On 1/22/01 4:16 PM, "Geoff Soutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we protect the
people that get offended? :-)
Those who need to be protected shouldn't walk outside their front door.
--
James Duncan Davidson
So, it seems that you have nothing against self defense. Right?
Paulo
-Original Message-
From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 19:23
On 1/22/01 4:16 PM, "Geoff Soutter" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I
-Original Message-
From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50
On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :)
We all are and that was never the
If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him
personally, is the appropriate thing to do.
That is just what we did. IMHO, no one was asking for "official action".
We made remarks about that issue of other veterans reprehending me and
not Jon or both. But even this
on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that
the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that
he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for
not
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him
personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the PMC's charter
expanded, that's something that can be discussed.
Not that I'm revealing any big secret here but yes I do have a
Hey Anil,
I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC
meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were
there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your
opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 19:39
on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is
perfect and that
the implementation is somewhat shity. In
Hey Jon,
You attacked Anil's position, but you did not proof him wrong.
What are you attacking? The ideas or the man?
Your ideas often make sense. Often better than opposite ideas.
IMO, what Anil, me and others dislike is that, instead of attacking
the opposite ideas, you attack the people
on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_.
I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion
about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should
bring up at the PMC." Do you
Jon Stevens wrote:
on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_.
I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion
about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should
bring
As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
"The last thing
we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to
me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you
should keep them to
"Scott Stirling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
"The last thing
we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It
seems to
me that if you can't handle having your ideas
At 11:08 23/1/01 +1100, Geoff Soutter wrote:
Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
muzzling them?
don't bother responding to them unless they do things the right way. email
them OFF list stating this in a very diplomatic way. Watch them explode and
then hopefully
"Peter Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:08 23/1/01 +1100, Geoff Soutter wrote:
Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
muzzling them?
don't bother responding to them unless they do things the right way. email
them OFF list stating this in a very
: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
"Scott Stirling" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
"The last thing
we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
someone's postin
Geoff Soutter wrote:
JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see
people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a
kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended
without seeming very autocratic.
I share
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to
stop.
How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the
"Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geoff Soutter wrote:
JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to
see
people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can
provide a
kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting
MAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 01:35
...
How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does
whatever the
fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on?
-jon
Jon, get
On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I
will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything.
Yep. I chose to. Of course because of that it'll all be my fault. :) Of
course, I'm on a
On 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think most of us feel that Jon deserves a wrap on the knuckles. :)
Not in my charter as I interpret it. Most people here seem to want a fairly
low key, laid back PMC. One that deals with focused issues. Everything else
happens on the
On 1/20/01 11:56 PM, "Anil Vijendran" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's contributions to ASF
or to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's great. But many
posts from Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small bit of toning
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
After all, it seemed clear to me that the PMC's role was too narrowly
defined to include "niceness overseers".
As a college student who's just getting involved with Apache after working
on some other projects over the years, I think it's
On 1/18/01 2:49 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be clear, I am fed up that Jon:
- tells everybody what they should do;
- judges and condemns people without knowing how their lives are (as with,
but not only, the several remarks about people not dialing-in in the PMC
I would rather let waters stay still. I am behaving and so is Jon.
However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I
will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything.
Everything I am writing here was already told before in previous postings.
Maybe you had no
-Original Message-
From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to
what I've
been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside.
Perhaps as the PMC chair you could ask Jon to tone it down. If his
on 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are
strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh.
I tried to be nice. More than once. It didn't work.
-jon
.
-Original Message-
From: James Cook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Forming an opinion
-Original Message-
From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of
the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is built on trust
more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source projects than
I can keep track of.
I won't ask
Thanks, Costin.
From the little I have seen so far, you haven't added much code; at least the
line count is very similar to 3.2.1. You should feel proud of what you have
accomplished so far; IMHO, all code-refactoring and re-design efforts are
worthy, regardless of where it is released. If it's
-Original Message-
From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL
* Paulo Gaspar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on Thu Jan 18, 2001 at 11:49:41 +0100:
-Original Message-
From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:42
on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth.
-Original Message-
From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 08:18
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
However, one of them is that there is no such thing as a
"version" of any Apache
project until there is a vote to go that way, and elect a
Remy,
Rest of your points re: Costin and your position on "3.3" well taken. But...
Remy Maucherat wrote:
However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just
*stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping
either Costin or this project in any way
On 1/17/2001 at 11:17 PM Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
Many of those rules and conventions are documented (such as the rules
on voting), but some are not. One of the things I took away from the
PMC meeting yesterday is the need to better articulate those rules.
As a new committer to another
ED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 11:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
* Paulo Gaspar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on Thu Jan 18,
2001 at 11:49:41 +0100:
-Original Message-
From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18,
How about splitting this list into two lists:
tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing
the development of Tomcat advance and
tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time
about nothing relevant ;-)
Regards,
Gummi Haf
--
Gudmundur Hafsteinsson - [EMAIL
: Re: Forming an opinion
How about splitting this list into two lists:
tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing
the development of Tomcat advance and
tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time
about nothing relevant ;-)
Regards,
Gummi Haf
--
Gudmundur
nsson" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
How about splitting this list into two lists:
tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing
the development of Tomcat advance and
tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time
abo
Hi there !
How about splitting this list into two lists:
tomcat-dev for those interested in seeing
the development of Tomcat advance and
tomcat-flames for those arguing all the time
about nothing relevant ;-)
Well as I do not have commiter status this doesn't count but:
+1
Reason:
Me and Jon are only posting constructive stuff now.
Don't kick us more!
=;o)
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
-Original Message-
From: Bernd Eilers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 14:28
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
Hi
"Ted Husted" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Although I probably don't understand all the nuances of the "Apache
Culture", as a Jakarta Committer, here is a draft "patch" that I would
suggest to decisions.html (mostly parity-checks):
[...]
One of the action items from the meeting was to do
Hi all!
I've seen a lot of discussion here on Tomcat 3.3 vs 4.0. Without some
knowledge about the inside workings of each version, it's very hard to
follow it -- I mean, find out the actual issues behind the "politics" --
or the politics behind the actual issues.
The article linked by
Hi Alex,
I'm doing nightly builds and source packages at:
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/tomcat/nightly-3.3
Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes
that a 3.3 release proposal can get.
The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3
Costin Manolache wrote:
1. Bug fixes. Tomcat 3.3 will be released _only_ if
it'll have all the known bugs fixed, and at least 3
commiters are willing to help fix further bugs.
It does not need to be all. A significant dent would be sufficient.
P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I
I agree Costin. Avoid the flame bait.
I am willing to help on code review and - if/when I know the beast
better - documentation. My schedule gets a bit lighter next week.
I will, of course, ask loads of things. But I hope I will mostly
need pointers to things.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes
that a 3.3 release proposal can get.
That's exactly right.
The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3
doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can
I totally agree with Hans. I attended the meeting yesterday and would hate to
see this kind of misunderstanding. Costin, I really don't think that anyone is
after you personally. No one is saying that you're a bad person. I personally
think that the passon you have about what you do is very
without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it
can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about
making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the
committers in the project and in line with our guidelines.
Sorry for taking it as a
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Costin
( believe me, it was one of my worst days, I hope you understand a bit my
feelings. )
Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad,
nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad,
nor do I see how that could
on 1/17/01 3:33 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
He apologized for taking things
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 01:01
Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
He apologized for taking things personally and
on 1/17/01 4:42 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure! Kick him harder!
Lets see, he started out his *first* email after the meeting with flame
bait, his next email was a pseudo apology, his third email is asking for
censorship.
Sure. I'm going to kick back. I'm tired of putting
First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be
concerned about when our main priority
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
How
on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
I am
-Original Message-
From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been
bad,
nor do I see how that could
on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and
statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried
to bring up motions in the
/ref=s
c_b_2/107-5367122-9735704
Filip
~
Namaste - I bow to the divine in you.
~
Filip Hanik
Technical Architect
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Stevens" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Forming
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be
concerned
66 matches
Mail list logo
