On Jul 6, 2006, at 12:05 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
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.
Simon, I've have to say I am shocked or maybe just not understanding
what you mean...hopefully it is the latter. When has anyone dismissed
Sebastien's ideas "out of hand"? I'm completely frustrated that not a
single one of my questions have been answered, vacations not
withstanding (no excuse in my book as I'm on vacation too). Moreover,
this is a pattern that has repeated itself time and again. Both
Jeremy and I spent significant time preparing the core2
presentation...some people responded but, perhaps not surprisingly,
none of the vocal proponents of starting afresh. We've asked numerous
times in emails to the list, IRC, at ApacheCon, on the phone, etc.
for those people to offer concrete suggestions for improving core2.
No response. I replied to several emails on the list that spoke of
the "starting over" in very broad terms. No response. I started the
wiki page on scenarios. Again, no response from the proponents of
starting afresh.
What needs to be done to elicit a response? It was even suggested
that Sebastien present his ideas, as Jeremy and I did. I'm willing
to block out however much time it takes, I assume at least four hours
one day, perhaps up to eight. Again, no response. If you'd like to
see a microcosm of this, please read the IRC log for today.
This is hardly the type of positive community building I imagined
when starting this project. To me, it sounds like a group of
individuals talking in generalizations who have no interest in
community building and just want their way without doing any of the
leg work to earn it.
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.
All of them taken as a whole, even assuming they are correct (which I
do not believe they are) would hardly amount to a rewrite. In fact,
none of the criticisms would even affect the core2 runtime as the
model is decoupled from it (one of the things we fixed w.r.t. to M1).
Do you believe otherwise? If so, let's get down and talk specifics,
instead of dancing around this issues.
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.
I didn't take Jeremy's attack to be personal, but rather a statement
about how something was done. Let's put that aside, though, since I
don't think it is constructive to argue the point. More importantly,
there's been little substantive technical engagement and the S/N
ratio is dreadfully low. What's the problem with talking about
specifics, namely show me why core2 cannot be used as a basis for
moving forward? Otherwise, let's get on with the work we have ahead
of us and put the incessant bickering aside.
Jim
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
