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.
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
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 w
> -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 Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL 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 i
"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 getti
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 th
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
Sent: 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
"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 v
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 hopefull
"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 y
> 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
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/shoul
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
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 that
> -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
First of, let me apologize for not showing up. IMO, it was an unfortunate thing
that happened and I had to drop my car off (in the morning) and then get it back
as well on the same day (before they close at 5). Regarding most of the actual
issues that got discussed, I was very happy with the kinds
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 the
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
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
> n
> 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
> -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
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 ref
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 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 th
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 vari
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 a
ean T.
> -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
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 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
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
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
> m
"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 t
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 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: s
teinsson" <[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 a
ubject: 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
--
Gud
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 PRO
y [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> 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 M
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 Jakar
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 wa
> -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
> -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 tru
* 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]
> -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 PRO
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
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
r=1-2/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
Subj
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
> > -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 se
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:00
>
> on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2?
> >> I have yet to see proof of that other
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 mad
> -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.
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 conce
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 is
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
> -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 persona
Paulo,
Please stop - don't answer back :-)
Costin
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> > -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:
>
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 pe
> -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 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 her
> 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 per
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 adm
[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 ca
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
> -O
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
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
doe
68 matches
Mail list logo
