Steve Brewin wrote:
Danny Angus wrote:
Can we not just give Danny's idea a try? We really need to find a way to cut
out all of this noise.
That's what Im doing :-)
I already updated the STATUS when I wrote that message.
Quite honestly, I can't be arsed to wade though threads to determine who
said what to who and when.
I happy that you are on the listeners of that file. I wrote that message
to understand who was interested in it apart Danny. It was not indended
as an insult to Danny or any refusal to do that from me.
I don't care whether its the status file or a wiki page (which should only
editable by committers). I do care that we have a clear and visible
direction recorded that has been decided by committer votes.
Ok, I'm interested understanding this opinions, because I would work
better on a wiki page for this kind of things. That's another reason for
my message.
I hate to think of the time people have wasted in these and similar
discussions that might more productively have been spent in moving James
forward. Its true that to move forward we need a consensus on goals. Once
achieved, we use the status file to publish them.
The hard part, unfortunately, is not recording it, but having a real
consensus. I'm having real problem creating a consensus around something
to collaborate upon for a goal, and when I think I did it I understand
that I'm probably on the wrong line.
It really shouldn't be this painful.
No it isn't.
Maybe I'll change my confidence on the role of the STATUS file when
others but me and Danny will update it and when it will "mean" something
to me, too!
Danny said about me "arguing" about the branches status:
"people who are driving out decisions will have more record keeping to
do, thats just life I'm afraid."
I want to make it clear that I'm not lead/owner of any branch now, and I
fill the PMC driven that decisions about branches, not me.
I have no problems updating the STATUS for things I think I
understand/know/overview of, but I really would like to see more people
involved in this because it seems to me that someone think that I'm
doing what I want on James, and this is not really the case: most time I
do what james needs, and what the PMC agreed, and this is much different
from what I would like to do on James.
What about adding to the STATUS a per-committer space where anyone
update (and add a "last-udpated" date) the personal goals?
------
Stefano Bagnara:
- Committed to fix bugs for 2.3.1
- Trying to keep updated james website, JIRA mantenaince
- Trying to coordinate efforts for next-major
- Working on the following list of issues for *next-major*:
JAMES-52 8bitmime capabilities missing
JAMES-595 artifacts names james => james-server
JAMES-675 Add search-domain configurability to DNSServer
JAMES-676 disable override of default resolver/cache in DNSServer
- Optional mid-term issues:
JAMES-134 JAMES-241 JAMES-288 Read/write streaming of data to db
JAMES-491 SpoolManager refactorings
- In the long term:
JAMES-520 Create a RemoteDelivery service
full DSN support
-----
You,
-----
Steve Brewin:
- Currently busy, not active on code.
- Partecipate on organizational and mentoring issues
-----
Maybe we should limit the list to the short term (releasable in 2.3.1,
next-minor or next-major) efforts.
I would remove generic data like "Project Mission", "Assets", "PMC
Members", "Committers" because all of this is already recorded in
different places and the file would start to be too big.
WDYT?
Stefano
Cheers
Steve
On 11/7/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Don't know what others think, but I have a few workflow
problems working
on the STATUS file (I would prefer, for example, a wiki page).
I would like to hear what other committers think about
this, as I would
not like to be the only one updating it: I'm not the owner
of any open
branch, but I just updated it to include some of them.
It is a matter of having a controlled record of what decisions we've
made, people who are driving out decisions will have more record
keeping to do, thats just life I'm afraid. And updating the STATUS
file isn't really much more difficult than updating a wiki page or
sending an email.
I personally don't need a status file because I spend
already so much
time on this project that it is more probable I forgot my
name than the
status of the project, and I currently feel I'm updating it to make
Danny happy...
No, you should be doing it to record the fact that *other people* have
endorsed what you are doing, This is a collaboration and it is
important to record our consensus, especially important to people in
your position who might be accused of doing too much too quickly
without the support of the group. The STATUS file is there to back you
up.
I really have problems deciding what to write there and what to not
write there. I would write there every message I wrote in
the "roadmaps"
threads but this would make it unreadable... so I don't
write much...
No, just key facts, what version, when. If you *want to* you can add
*short* descriptions of what is planned for the versions, and record
VOTES which people might question. You're finding that it is hard to
keep reminding people that they have agreed to something. The STATUS
file should help stop that.
That said I will update it when you'll write "this should be in the
status file" ;-) . And maybe you can do this for a while so I learn.
I hope you will learn that it can benefit you by being your sword and
shield as well ;-)
And if it really doesn't help us with some of this stuff, well we can
stop using it again.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
