Dave Newton wrote:
Jonathan Revusky wrote:
As regards insults, there is a difference of perspective here. My own
feeling is that in all of my posts I have exercised a great degree of
self-restraint.
Unless you count being able to state your view concisely.
There are 2 basic reasons that my messages tend to be longer than they
might be otherwise.
1. It's actually more time consuming to write a shorter message. At
least if the message is to make the same points. I already am spending
too much time on this, so I am not going to spend 2 or 3 times as much
time to edit down the messages.
2. I know that there is significant animosity towards me here and if I
leave any gap for somebody sink their teeth into, they will. So I build
up my arguments in a more painstaking, detailed way than I would otherwise.
[...] people literally claim that the managers of the project do not
have to listen to criticism.
They don't! Perhaps they _should_ (and, quite frankly, I believe they
_do_, but I don't expect them to _act_ on it).
I still do not understand from whence this obligation comes.
From whence???? From whence???? Is the Shakespearean festival nigh?
Oh, you mean you don't understand where this obligation comes from.
I read this and it just blows me away. I guess you have a point of
sorts. Nobody explicitly mentions an obligation to behave according to
the dictates of common sense.
Suppose the PMC decided that their goal was actually to make Struts
worse -- instead of eliminating bugs, to introduce new ones.
You could similarly ask "from whence the obligation comes" to try to
make the software better rather than worse. But nobody has a conversatin
about that because it's just crazy, right? Everybody just figures that
if you have an ongoing development effort, it is to make the thing
better, not worse. For example, I bet that none of the "How ASF works"
sorts of pages that Ted Husted might point you to bother to explicitly
say that the point of ongoing development is to make the product better
rather than worse.
It's just a given.
Similarly, all this stuff on the apache.org pages about community, that
development is "community-based" or whatever. Well what does that mean,
for people not to listen to one another? I mean, aren't there things
that one just takes as a given?
It's just mind-boggling to be trying to answer this kind of question
really....
I strongly believe that a guiding principle the basic idea of open
source is that if someone is willing and able to pitch in, they should
have the chance to do so.
It appears as though you believe that if someone is willing and able to
pitch in that they should have commit rights, which is not really the
same thing.
As a practical matter, it basically means giving people commit rights.
Trying to let people work on stuff while keeping them at arm's length
just is unlikely to work for long. If you're going to let someone do
some work, yeah, you have to open the door and let them in.
Jonathan only arrived in this community part way through this thread,
hopefully he'll get bored and leave soon.
Well, the truth is that hanging around here is not a very enriching
experience.
So... um... why are you still here?
At the moment, I think it is mostly because this whole dysfunctional
scene exerts a morbid fascination on me. It's actually funny in a very
dark humor sort of way, you know.
Regards,
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
FreeMarker group blog, http://freemarker.blogspot.com/
Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
