Jeremy, Jeremy Boynes wrote:
On Jul 6, 2006, at 2:17 AM, Simon Nash wrote:
<cut/>
The point here is not how large someone's code is but whether they are working with others in the community. As you point out, there has been quite a bit of discussion over the last few days on how we should move forward, discussion in which many people have engaged but in which Sebastien has remained silent. Rather than work with others to improve the model we already have, he chose to start over on his own with a completely new architecture titled "m2-design." This isn't asking for constructive discussion, it's throwing gasoline on the fire.
I don't see Sebastien's actions as implying the motives that you suggest. Anyone can be offline for a couple of days, especially over a holiday time, without this meaning that they are not engaging with the community. And I can see no justification for your statement that putting forward a new idea in the form of some prototype interface code, with a covering note asking for community reaction and feedback, is in any sense failing to work with the community but an act of throwing gasoline on the fire. As Jim says, we all need to work together constructively on this. I believe this means being open to new ideas, even if they involve some rework of code that already exists. To simply dismiss such ideas out of hand does not move us forward technically and does not help with community building either.
In terms of open-mindedness, Jim and I have already engaged on the technical issues Sebastien brought up in his mail, just like we and other community members did on the scenario thread. As these things usually go, on some issues there's agreement, on some there are differences of opinion, and others need more clarification. I look forward to others joining this kind of constructive discussion so that we can come to consensus. However, all the technical issues he raised can be addressed by the incremental improvement approach and none seem to warrant starting over; using something like using a List vs. Map to justify a re-write is simply hyperbole.
Your statement here that Sebastien is justifying a rewrite based on this one issue is a hyperbole that does not reflect the post that he sent. He listed a number of suggestions of which this was only one. If these are each taken separately, then each of them can be reduced to something that could potentially be added incrementally to core2. If they are all taken together, then it is valid to ask the question (as Sebastien has done) whether core2 is the best starting point or whether a different approach is preferable.
Far from being negative, I am glad that we finally have these social issues out of smoke-filled rooms and onto the table. This kind of thing is never a pleasant discussion but is one that must be had if we are to function as a community.
I am fine with technical debate and I think this is very healthy and should be happening in the open on this list. However, when people express technical opinions or put forward technical proposals, I don't think it is appropriate to respond with a personal attack implying that some anti-community motive lies behind a technical proposal or idea. I hope we can agree to keep these discussions technical from now on. Simon -- Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
