You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org> on 2002/10/28 20:05:28 UTC
ASF Membership Nomination: Ted Husted
I hereby nominate Ted Husted.
Ted has been a long term committer on Struts and Jakarta Commons, and his
code contributions have been valuable. But, in addition to that, Ted has
taken the lead at attempting to help us codify our policies and
procedures, and helping us clarify what we mean by "the Apache way". This
has been demonstrated during the development of Jakarta Commons, and is
also clear in his frequent, positive, and constructive contributions to
the ongoing discussions about the organization of Apache as a whole.
Would any ASF member care to second this nomination?
Craig McClanahan
Re: ASF Membership Nomination: Ted Husted
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
While I'm just a committer I just want to state my support for both Ted
and Morgan :-)
-Andy
Morgan Delagrange wrote:
>--- Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
>
>
>>Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The problem with nominations in a forum that does
>>>
>>>
>>not perfectly
>>
>>
>>>match the voting body is that it makes it
>>>
>>>
>>difficult to hold
>>
>>
>>>discussions about the nominee in a fair way.
>>>
>>>
>>Nominations, IMNSHO,
>>
>>
>>>belong on the members@apache.org.
>>>
>>>
>>not to mention sparing the nominees' feelings if
>>they *don't*
>>get elected. (that has happened only once afaik,
>>but nevertheless.)
>>
>>i know *i* would feel not-so-good if i was publicly
>>nominated
>>for something and then voted down.
>>
>>
>
>I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire away.
>I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see what
>goes into the evaluation process. If you're really
>concerned about keeping your opinion on me private,
>you can post it to members instead, but I assure you
>that I'm OK with criticism.
>
>In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and know
>why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
>
>- Morgan
>
>
>
>>--
>>#ken P-)}
>>
>>Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
>>http://Golux.Com/coar/
>>Author, developer, opinionist
>>http://Apache-Server.Com/
>>
>>"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail:
>>community-help@apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>=====
>Morgan Delagrange
>http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
>http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
>http://axion.tigris.org
>http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>.
"Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org> writes:
> It is not only for the nominee but also for the voting body.
> When someone other than a fellow voter is looking at you
> expectantly, people tend to act differently. [Try stuffing
> a camera in someones face and see if you can spot behaviour
> changes.]
>
> In a sense this is influencing the voting body, whether positive
> or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate IMO.
I agree, well said.
--
Daniel Rall <dl...@finemaltcoding.com>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
That is not what I meant... there is supposidly a txt version.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm looking for the text version of this:
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html
>>
>> which is supposedly in text form SOMEWHERE in CVS in some module...
>
>
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-site2/xdocs/site/agreement.xml
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> I'm looking for the text version of this:
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html
>
> which is supposedly in text form SOMEWHERE in CVS in some module...
http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/~checkout~/jakarta-site2/xdocs/site/agreement.xml
- Sam Ruby
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Thursday, October 31, 2002, at 05:01 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I'm looking for the text version of this:
>>>
>>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html
>>>
>>> which is supposedly in text form SOMEWHERE in CVS in some module...
>>
>>
>> Oh, that cottonpicker. Sent via separate mail. For some reason it's in
>> foundation, and I don't know why it was never released out of there
>> once final.
>
>
> where in CVS is it? Just for future reference?
It's in foundation/Licenses/contributions/ASF_Contributor_License_2.txt
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>>
>> I'm looking for the text version of this:
>>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html
>>
>> which is supposedly in text form SOMEWHERE in CVS in some module...
>
>
> Oh, that cottonpicker. Sent via separate mail. For some reason it's in
> foundation, and I don't know why it was never released out of there
> once final.
where in CVS is it? Just for future reference?
>>>
>>> All of the above. On the one hand, "because thats the way we've
>>> always done it" doesn't invalidate a process that works. It might
>>> need to get that written down for some to feel better with it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand free speech is cool with me, it should go without
>>> saying. 8^) It is customary to abandon working within a system if
>>> one exhausts all avenues there, and work outside it. I don't think
>>> that's been done here yet. I do realize some folks think they have
>>> exhausted all alternatives. That disconnect alone is fertile soil
>>> for polarization.
>>
>>
>> No I think its "openness" vs "closedness".. Saying "exhaust all
>> avenues working in the closed system to see if that achieves the
>> openness you desire" is kinda.... self-contradicting?
>
>
> I didn't cast this as closed vs. open, nor as closed=bad and
> open=good, because I think both have proper places in running the show
> here.
>
> Is this difference more accurately described as "If I can't see it I
> worry that there's bad juju going on" vs. "If I can see it I can see
> all the good and bad juju going on"? That seems to be basically a
> trust issue to me. So maybe we hit the root of all the weirdness at last.
>
> Could it be that we don't trust each other to be working in each
> others' best interests? I would hope they are common interests or we
> are SOL. Implementations we can vote on all day, but trust and common
> direction are either there or they are not.
But for instance Sam is a member and he's a Jakarta/XMLer. Besides I
think the trust issue goes both ways... Before this list, I had no idea
who most of these people I was trusting were! Only by rumor/reputation
and google. So who did I trust? Sam and Stefano. This list is part of
the change.. and its already making a difference.
-Andy
>>
>> Which I guess is basically the part I agreed with... Rather than
>> having a philisophical discussion on it...lets you and I lead by
>> example.. . ;-)
>>
>
> +1.
>
> Gotta get back to work now. But I'll be back.
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>
> >
> > Lists are how we procreate.
>
>
> Eeewwww...
>
> Perhaps there *are* some things that really should be done in private.
ROTFL :-)))
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Ted Husted wrote:
>
>>
>> Lists are how we procreate.
>
>
> Eeewwww...
>
> Perhaps there *are* some things that really should be done in
> private.
And please protect the archives from public access :-)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
stevenn@outerthought.org stevenn@apache.org
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> Lists are how we procreate.
Eeewwww...
Perhaps there *are* some things that really should be done in private.
- Sam Ruby
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> And people call us geeks! Why is it so?
:-O .... LOL ! :-D:-D
>
> Ted, you certainly have a way with words.
>
> Conor
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au>.
Ted Husted wrote:
>
> Lists are how we procreate.
And people call us geeks! Why is it so?
Ted, you certainly have a way with words.
Conor
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
10/31/2002 12:14:04 AM, Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org> wrote:
>Could it be that we don't trust each other to be working in each
>others' best interests? I would hope they are common interests or
>we are SOL. Implementations we can vote on all day, but trust and
>common direction are either there or they are not.
Its hard to trust what you don't know. Lists are how we procreate.
People see what we are doing, like what they see, and start to
contribute. The open User and Dev lists lower the bar so that
other people can join us and become part of our Community.
I appreciate why some Projects and the ASF Members like the
restricted lists. But closed lists, on their own, tend to create
closed Communities. If we do not document our process on the
lists, then we must document elsewhere. Otherwise, how can we
*earn* people's trust.
If the Incubator provides model documentation for our Projects,
then it will be easier for others to see how the ASF architecture
really works. This will make it easier for people to emulate our
process, not only at Apache but elsewhere. Personally, I'd like to
include model walk throughs of the processes, like an Apache
Cookbook.
It's been said that the little things make a big difference. I
think that's been very true here. For example, it was mentioned,
almost as an aside, that PMCs must approve the Releases. Knowing
this, we can patch the guidelines:
<href="http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html">
Majority approval is required before the release can be made.
<insert>Once a release is approved by the Committers, the Project
Management Committee can authorize its distribution on behalf of
the Foundation.</insert>
</href>
Doesn't seem like much, but it does communicate that the
subprojects Committers are not an autonomous body. Just having to
get the Jakarta PMC to sign-off on a release might be enough to
get some of the subprojects to leave the nest.
Meanwhile, we had a "Welcome nominee" letter, but no "Welcome
Committer" letter, so we can patch one in to encapsulate some of
the trailing-edge procedures, like updating the database.
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/roles.html>
The Welcome Committer letter also lets people know their login is
on the way, and gives us a place to link in a FAQ. There's a lot
of material on the Apache site, and a FAQ goes a long way toward
stressing the salient points:
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newbie.html>
In many ways, we face a situation similar to that of the
architects of the United States government (our "founding
fathers"). After drafting and ratifying the constitution, they
turned around and added ten quick amendments (the "Bill of
Rights"). Why? Because they had not documented the elements of
English common law. These were all "understood" and in the framers
minds "went without saying". Likewise, there are subtle but vital
elements of the ASF common "protocol" that we need to document for
future generations of Apaches. Right now, it's not that people are
turning from The Apache Way, it's that many of us have never truly
walked it.
(Would you like some more tea?)
-Ted.
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 12:24 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If they do not know what questions to ask, how are they to find the
>>> answers? I have read what documentation was apparent to me and I
>>> feel I have a reasonable understanding of how things work.....but
>>> what if I don't? How do I know what the base set of information I
>>> should know is?
>>
>>
>> I have to ask so many questions these days I feel like an idiot.
>> Sometimes I ask the wrong question, and have to figure out empirically
>> how to ask the right one. But that doesn't stop me. I am trying to
>> figure out how to be a jakarta subproject, and I ask when I am
>> ignorant (perhaps even stupid if I forgot the answer given the first
>> time and I can't find it). I think I can understand firsthand what
>> it's like going in the other direction, and I have already had to
>> tread the path you describe. What worked for me was to scan everything
>> I could find, noting what seemed relevant, and asking questions.
>
>
> Right, but in that case a great deal of patience must be involved in
> all directions. However patience seems to be a precious commodity in
> all respects.
+1.
>
>>>
>>> No but organizing the information into a "this is the minimum you
>>> should know" will lead many people to read at least that. Then they
>>> will hopefully ask more questions.
>>
>>
>> Absolutely. We'd be done by now if all the volumes of mail on reorg@
>> and here were volumes of ASF doc. 8^) Mea culpa too.
>
> hehe....but there in lies the dillemma... before the little fun on
> reorg@ I had NO idea how to submit patches to the www site! ;-) And
> everyone I'd asked had said "I don't know" ;-)
S'OK. I just figured out how to get the mojo to do the same on Jakarta.
8^) And I think though I might have confused a couple of people, I
didn't piss anyone off, so I'd consider it a bumbling success.
>
>>>
>>> I've read them, but many people didn't subscribe to it at first, some
>>> people don't speak english natively and so the legalistic language
>>> may not be very digestable.
>>
>>
>> Agreed, i18n'ing all this stuff is an excellent suggestion for a later
>> step. As you say, people are doubtless now catching up noi their
>> reading.
>
> Well you can easily deduce my opinion on the i18n thing...
> http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/ (see the various languages we've begun
> translating)....and if no one does it... I give it ago ;-) even if I
> don't speak the language... this encourages those who don't wish to see
> their native languages defaced in such a way to contribute ;-)
+1.
>
>>> and what do you suggest I search on exactly. Do you feel that this
>>> kind of searching would be okay given the poor performance of the web
>>> server over the last few days?
>>>
>>> Honestly it didn't occur to me to shell in and grep through the
>>> hundreds of megs of... I shall do so. (Though not via C shell which
>>> I have a great deal of distaste for :-p)
>>
>>
>> No worry. If I knew your problem set better (or understood WTF you
>> wrote 8^) I might be able to help more. But it's worth using the
>> tools, whichever ones you like, sometimes on unusual ways. 100's of Mb
>> of grep might not be the best approach on a loaded server.
>
> I'm looking for the text version of this:
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html
>
> which is supposedly in text form SOMEWHERE in CVS in some module...
Oh, that cottonpicker. Sent via separate mail. For some reason it's in
foundation, and I don't know why it was never released out of there once
final.
>
>>
>>>
>>> "because thats the way we've always done it" -- perhaps a more
>>> constructive way to put this would be "Can we work to propose the
>>> changes formally before beginning to propose members on the community
>>> list and chaning the process ad hoc, would it not be better for sam
>>> to first put this up to a vote or something before just doing this"
>>>
>>> On the other hand, perhaps sam regards doing this as free speech
>>> leading up to a formal revision of the process. I guess I'll leave
>>> that up to sam rather than speculate. While I've been posting
>>> proposed solutions to the problems as they are brought up and listing
>>> the tradeoffs as I see them and asking for further input (thereby
>>> trying to capture multiple viewpoints) , I think we're making
>>> progress on trying to build a more cohesive and open community...
>>> But then again, I'm a crazy man.
>>
>>
>> All of the above. On the one hand, "because thats the way we've always
>> done it" doesn't invalidate a process that works. It might need to get
>> that written down for some to feel better with it.
>>
>> On the other hand free speech is cool with me, it should go without
>> saying. 8^) It is customary to abandon working within a system if one
>> exhausts all avenues there, and work outside it. I don't think that's
>> been done here yet. I do realize some folks think they have exhausted
>> all alternatives. That disconnect alone is fertile soil for
>> polarization.
>
> No I think its "openness" vs "closedness".. Saying "exhaust all
> avenues working in the closed system to see if that achieves the
> openness you desire" is kinda.... self-contradicting?
I didn't cast this as closed vs. open, nor as closed=bad and open=good,
because I think both have proper places in running the show here.
Is this difference more accurately described as "If I can't see it I
worry that there's bad juju going on" vs. "If I can see it I can see all
the good and bad juju going on"? That seems to be basically a trust
issue to me. So maybe we hit the root of all the weirdness at last.
Could it be that we don't trust each other to be working in each others'
best interests? I would hope they are common interests or we are SOL.
Implementations we can vote on all day, but trust and common direction
are either there or they are not.
>
>>>
>>> It seems a great deal of focus has been put on how to change
>>> Jakarta... I do not feel persistantly harping on the idea is
>>> productive without concrete and constructive ideas. I think we
>>> should begin talking about "Whats good" and "how do we improve it"
>>> rather than focusing on individuals and groups within the whole
>>> (singling them out) and finding what sucks about them. "Perhaps the
>>> HTTPD crowd is too autocratic and secretive" -- is that a productive
>>> statement? No. "Lets work on finding things that are currently
>>> discussed in secret, figure out why and how they can be made more
>>> open. For instance currently.... I suggest...." -- The same general
>>> statement --- only its connotation is very different. Thats how I
>>> feel about it.
>>>
>>
>> I need to say I want to put the focus on changing ourselves, as well.
>> The one thing I can't seem to see here sometimes are the results of
>> self-examination as well as examining others. I know for a fact you
>> and I are starting to agree more than we disagree, so I know that
>> unwritten process can work.
>
> Which I guess is basically the part I agreed with... Rather than
> having a philisophical discussion on it...lets you and I lead by
> example.. . ;-)
>
+1.
Gotta get back to work now. But I'll be back.
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>>
>>
>> If they do not know what questions to ask, how are they to find the
>> answers? I have read what documentation was apparent to me and I
>> feel I have a reasonable understanding of how things work.....but
>> what if I don't? How do I know what the base set of information I
>> should know is?
>
>
> I have to ask so many questions these days I feel like an idiot.
> Sometimes I ask the wrong question, and have to figure out empirically
> how to ask the right one. But that doesn't stop me. I am trying to
> figure out how to be a jakarta subproject, and I ask when I am
> ignorant (perhaps even stupid if I forgot the answer given the first
> time and I can't find it). I think I can understand firsthand what
> it's like going in the other direction, and I have already had to
> tread the path you describe. What worked for me was to scan everything
> I could find, noting what seemed relevant, and asking questions.
Right, but in that case a great deal of patience must be involved in all
directions. However patience seems to be a precious commodity in all
respects.
>>
>> No but organizing the information into a "this is the minimum you
>> should know" will lead many people to read at least that. Then they
>> will hopefully ask more questions.
>
>
> Absolutely. We'd be done by now if all the volumes of mail on reorg@
> and here were volumes of ASF doc. 8^) Mea culpa too.
hehe....but there in lies the dillemma... before the little fun on
reorg@ I had NO idea how to submit patches to the www site! ;-) And
everyone I'd asked had said "I don't know" ;-)
>>
>> I've read them, but many people didn't subscribe to it at first, some
>> people don't speak english natively and so the legalistic language
>> may not be very digestable.
>
>
> Agreed, i18n'ing all this stuff is an excellent suggestion for a later
> step. As you say, people are doubtless now catching up noi their reading.
Well you can easily deduce my opinion on the i18n thing...
http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/ (see the various languages we've begun
translating)....and if no one does it... I give it ago ;-) even if I
don't speak the language... this encourages those who don't wish to see
their native languages defaced in such a way to contribute ;-)
>> and what do you suggest I search on exactly. Do you feel that this
>> kind of searching would be okay given the poor performance of the web
>> server over the last few days?
>>
>> Honestly it didn't occur to me to shell in and grep through the
>> hundreds of megs of... I shall do so. (Though not via C shell which
>> I have a great deal of distaste for :-p)
>
>
> No worry. If I knew your problem set better (or understood WTF you
> wrote 8^) I might be able to help more. But it's worth using the
> tools, whichever ones you like, sometimes on unusual ways. 100's of Mb
> of grep might not be the best approach on a loaded server.
I'm looking for the text version of this:
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/agreement.html
which is supposedly in text form SOMEWHERE in CVS in some module...
>
>>
>> "because thats the way we've always done it" -- perhaps a more
>> constructive way to put this would be "Can we work to propose the
>> changes formally before beginning to propose members on the community
>> list and chaning the process ad hoc, would it not be better for sam
>> to first put this up to a vote or something before just doing this"
>>
>> On the other hand, perhaps sam regards doing this as free speech
>> leading up to a formal revision of the process. I guess I'll leave
>> that up to sam rather than speculate. While I've been posting
>> proposed solutions to the problems as they are brought up and listing
>> the tradeoffs as I see them and asking for further input (thereby
>> trying to capture multiple viewpoints) , I think we're making
>> progress on trying to build a more cohesive and open community...
>> But then again, I'm a crazy man.
>
>
> All of the above. On the one hand, "because thats the way we've always
> done it" doesn't invalidate a process that works. It might need to get
> that written down for some to feel better with it.
>
> On the other hand free speech is cool with me, it should go without
> saying. 8^) It is customary to abandon working within a system if one
> exhausts all avenues there, and work outside it. I don't think that's
> been done here yet. I do realize some folks think they have exhausted
> all alternatives. That disconnect alone is fertile soil for polarization.
No I think its "openness" vs "closedness".. Saying "exhaust all avenues
working in the closed system to see if that achieves the openness you
desire" is kinda.... self-contradicting?
>>
>> It seems a great deal of focus has been put on how to change
>> Jakarta... I do not feel persistantly harping on the idea is
>> productive without concrete and constructive ideas. I think we
>> should begin talking about "Whats good" and "how do we improve it"
>> rather than focusing on individuals and groups within the whole
>> (singling them out) and finding what sucks about them. "Perhaps the
>> HTTPD crowd is too autocratic and secretive" -- is that a productive
>> statement? No. "Lets work on finding things that are currently
>> discussed in secret, figure out why and how they can be made more
>> open. For instance currently.... I suggest...." -- The same general
>> statement --- only its connotation is very different. Thats how I
>> feel about it.
>>
>
> I need to say I want to put the focus on changing ourselves, as well.
> The one thing I can't seem to see here sometimes are the results of
> self-examination as well as examining others. I know for a fact you
> and I are starting to agree more than we disagree, so I know that
> unwritten process can work.
Which I guess is basically the part I agreed with... Rather than having
a philisophical discussion on it...lets you and I lead by example.. . ;-)
-andy
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 08:38 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> how many know they are supposed to? Googling is the solution? humm.
>>> Perhaps the most famous and capable web development organization
>>> should come up with a better method of organizing its web content
>>> than "go search on google for what it means to be part of the ASF"...
>>
>>
>> I'm not saying ASF shouldn't write stuff down. Perhaps we need an
>> asf-docs project, since lots of this is not written down because
>> people like to code, not doc.
>>
>> I do think it's inaccurate to say that none of the information exists
>> elsewhere. And I don't think that saying it's not all written down yet
>> should be a valid excuse for not learning elsewhere. Would that reason
>> be valid for any of us not to do our jobs? We all do research to
>> understand what we need to write code; is it *that* unreasonable to
>> expect folks to do a little research in the same vein regarding ASF?
>
>
> If they do not know what questions to ask, how are they to find the
> answers? I have read what documentation was apparent to me and I feel
> I have a reasonable understanding of how things work.....but what if I
> don't? How do I know what the base set of information I should know is?
I have to ask so many questions these days I feel like an idiot.
Sometimes I ask the wrong question, and have to figure out empirically
how to ask the right one. But that doesn't stop me. I am trying to
figure out how to be a jakarta subproject, and I ask when I am ignorant
(perhaps even stupid if I forgot the answer given the first time and I
can't find it). I think I can understand firsthand what it's like going
in the other direction, and I have already had to tread the path you
describe. What worked for me was to scan everything I could find, noting
what seemed relevant, and asking questions.
>>
>> Writing things down and even mandating they must be read is not going
>> to get people who don't want to read them to do so. I am surprised
>> that people must be made to know they should read and learn more about
>> ASF. It seems to me like having to tell people they need to read the
>> loan terms before buying a car or house. IMO some of this *should* go
>> without saying.
>
> No but organizing the information into a "this is the minimum you
> should know" will lead many people to read at least that. Then they
> will hopefully ask more questions.
Absolutely. We'd be done by now if all the volumes of mail on reorg@ and
here were volumes of ASF doc. 8^) Mea culpa too.
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps the bylaws are insuffiently disseminated. Sure its on the
>>> web... Sure its on the apache site...but have you read EVERYTHING on
>>> the apache site? OR do you read what you look for or what strikes
>>> you in the face immediately as being important. A basic rule of
>>> "send this link with this set of 'read this at minimum' to all
>>> committers" seems more sensible.
>>
>>
>> As opposed to expecting folks to want to learn about it? Pertaining to
>> discussions on this list and reorg@, is it reasonable to assume that
>> anyone *hasn't* read the bylaws?
>
> I've read them, but many people didn't subscribe to it at first, some
> people don't speak english natively and so the legalistic language may
> not be very digestable.
Agreed, i18n'ing all this stuff is an excellent suggestion for a later
step. As you say, people are doubtless now catching up noi their reading.
>
>>> For instance, I'd like very much to link the text version of the
>>> committer for to the jakarta webized version. I hear its not on the
>>> web but its in CVS... I have absolutely freaking no idea where.. .
>>> Sure its there...but a needle in the haystack.
>>
>>
>> I am not saying this to be trite, but that's what tools are for. I use
>> the cshell alias
>>
>> gff find !:1 -name "!:2" -exec grep "!:3" {} \; -print
>>
>> a lot here.
>
> and what do you suggest I search on exactly. Do you feel that this
> kind of searching would be okay given the poor performance of the web
> server over the last few days?
>
> Honestly it didn't occur to me to shell in and grep through the
> hundreds of megs of... I shall do so. (Though not via C shell which I
> have a great deal of distaste for :-p)
No worry. If I knew your problem set better (or understood WTF you wrote
8^) I might be able to help more. But it's worth using the tools,
whichever ones you like, sometimes on unusual ways. 100's of Mb of grep
might not be the best approach on a loaded server.
>
>>>
>>> I disagree. This evolved from a desire for greater openness in the
>>> ASF and a more inclusive framework. Perhaps people such as Sam
>>> already see themselves as viable members capable of evolving the
>>> process and are working out new ideas. Perhaps he feels the ASF
>>> should be more open and is working to improve upon it and is already
>>> familiar with the existing system.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps. Can you see that there are other interpretations possible?
>> Especially when it appears we are getting into a situation where we
>> are chasing our collective tail? Or it appears that we are simply
>> inventing process as we go here in the face of process that already
>> exists?
>
> "because thats the way we've always done it" -- perhaps a more
> constructive way to put this would be "Can we work to propose the
> changes formally before beginning to propose members on the community
> list and chaning the process ad hoc, would it not be better for sam to
> first put this up to a vote or something before just doing this"
>
> On the other hand, perhaps sam regards doing this as free speech
> leading up to a formal revision of the process. I guess I'll leave
> that up to sam rather than speculate. While I've been posting proposed
> solutions to the problems as they are brought up and listing the
> tradeoffs as I see them and asking for further input (thereby trying to
> capture multiple viewpoints) , I think we're making progress on trying
> to build a more cohesive and open community... But then again, I'm a
> crazy man.
All of the above. On the one hand, "because thats the way we've always
done it" doesn't invalidate a process that works. It might need to get
that written down for some to feel better with it.
On the other hand free speech is cool with me, it should go without
saying. 8^) It is customary to abandon working within a system if one
exhausts all avenues there, and work outside it. I don't think that's
been done here yet. I do realize some folks think they have exhausted
all alternatives. That disconnect alone is fertile soil for polarization.
>
>>> Perhaps that is not the most enlightened statement I've heard.
>>> Perhaps statements like this lead to disenfranchisement and make
>>> those Jakarta committers feel that way. Especially since you're
>>> attacking (I think) the very group whom have come here to try and
>>> bridge the gaps.
>>>
>>
>> I made a statement about possible perception, not an accusation. I
>> made it to broach the radical idea that Jakarta folks might not be
>> seeing themselves in the light others are, and might also need to
>> change themselves as well as change ASF. I think we already agree that
>> ASF needs to change, and is doing so.
>
> It seems a great deal of focus has been put on how to change Jakarta...
> I do not feel persistantly harping on the idea is productive without
> concrete and constructive ideas. I think we should begin talking about
> "Whats good" and "how do we improve it" rather than focusing on
> individuals and groups within the whole (singling them out) and finding
> what sucks about them. "Perhaps the HTTPD crowd is too autocratic and
> secretive" -- is that a productive statement? No. "Lets work on
> finding things that are currently discussed in secret, figure out why
> and how they can be made more open. For instance currently.... I
> suggest...." -- The same general statement --- only its connotation is
> very different. Thats how I feel about it.
>
I need to say I want to put the focus on changing ourselves, as well.
The one thing I can't seem to see here sometimes are the results of
self-examination as well as examining others. I know for a fact you and
I are starting to agree more than we disagree, so I know that unwritten
process can work.
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>>
>> how many know they are supposed to? Googling is the solution? humm.
>> Perhaps the most famous and capable web development organization
>> should come up with a better method of organizing its web content
>> than "go search on google for what it means to be part of the ASF"...
>
>
> I'm not saying ASF shouldn't write stuff down. Perhaps we need an
> asf-docs project, since lots of this is not written down because
> people like to code, not doc.
>
> I do think it's inaccurate to say that none of the information exists
> elsewhere. And I don't think that saying it's not all written down yet
> should be a valid excuse for not learning elsewhere. Would that reason
> be valid for any of us not to do our jobs? We all do research to
> understand what we need to write code; is it *that* unreasonable to
> expect folks to do a little research in the same vein regarding ASF?
If they do not know what questions to ask, how are they to find the
answers? I have read what documentation was apparent to me and I feel I
have a reasonable understanding of how things work.....but what if I
don't? How do I know what the base set of information I should know is?
>
> Writing things down and even mandating they must be read is not going
> to get people who don't want to read them to do so. I am surprised
> that people must be made to know they should read and learn more about
> ASF. It seems to me like having to tell people they need to read the
> loan terms before buying a car or house. IMO some of this *should* go
> without saying.
No but organizing the information into a "this is the minimum you should
know" will lead many people to read at least that. Then they will
hopefully ask more questions.
>>
>> Perhaps the bylaws are insuffiently disseminated. Sure its on the
>> web... Sure its on the apache site...but have you read EVERYTHING on
>> the apache site? OR do you read what you look for or what strikes
>> you in the face immediately as being important. A basic rule of
>> "send this link with this set of 'read this at minimum' to all
>> committers" seems more sensible.
>
>
> As opposed to expecting folks to want to learn about it? Pertaining to
> discussions on this list and reorg@, is it reasonable to assume that
> anyone *hasn't* read the bylaws?
I've read them, but many people didn't subscribe to it at first, some
people don't speak english natively and so the legalistic language may
not be very digestable.
>> For instance, I'd like very much to link the text version of the
>> committer for to the jakarta webized version. I hear its not on the
>> web but its in CVS... I have absolutely freaking no idea where.. .
>> Sure its there...but a needle in the haystack.
>
>
> I am not saying this to be trite, but that's what tools are for. I use
> the cshell alias
>
> gff find !:1 -name "!:2" -exec grep "!:3" {} \; -print
>
> a lot here.
and what do you suggest I search on exactly. Do you feel that this kind
of searching would be okay given the poor performance of the web server
over the last few days?
Honestly it didn't occur to me to shell in and grep through the hundreds
of megs of... I shall do so. (Though not via C shell which I have a
great deal of distaste for :-p)
>>
>> I disagree. This evolved from a desire for greater openness in the
>> ASF and a more inclusive framework. Perhaps people such as Sam
>> already see themselves as viable members capable of evolving the
>> process and are working out new ideas. Perhaps he feels the ASF
>> should be more open and is working to improve upon it and is already
>> familiar with the existing system.
>
>
> Perhaps. Can you see that there are other interpretations possible?
> Especially when it appears we are getting into a situation where we
> are chasing our collective tail? Or it appears that we are simply
> inventing process as we go here in the face of process that already
> exists?
"because thats the way we've always done it" -- perhaps a more
constructive way to put this would be "Can we work to propose the
changes formally before beginning to propose members on the community
list and chaning the process ad hoc, would it not be better for sam to
first put this up to a vote or something before just doing this"
On the other hand, perhaps sam regards doing this as free speech leading
up to a formal revision of the process. I guess I'll leave that up to
sam rather than speculate. While I've been posting proposed solutions
to the problems as they are brought up and listing the tradeoffs as I
see them and asking for further input (thereby trying to capture
multiple viewpoints) , I think we're making progress on trying to build
a more cohesive and open community... But then again, I'm a crazy man.
>> Perhaps that is not the most enlightened statement I've heard.
>> Perhaps statements like this lead to disenfranchisement and make
>> those Jakarta committers feel that way. Especially since you're
>> attacking (I think) the very group whom have come here to try and
>> bridge the gaps.
>>
>
> I made a statement about possible perception, not an accusation. I
> made it to broach the radical idea that Jakarta folks might not be
> seeing themselves in the light others are, and might also need to
> change themselves as well as change ASF. I think we already agree that
> ASF needs to change, and is doing so.
It seems a great deal of focus has been put on how to change Jakarta...
I do not feel persistantly harping on the idea is productive without
concrete and constructive ideas. I think we should begin talking about
"Whats good" and "how do we improve it" rather than focusing on
individuals and groups within the whole (singling them out) and finding
what sucks about them. "Perhaps the HTTPD crowd is too autocratic and
secretive" -- is that a productive statement? No. "Lets work on
finding things that are currently discussed in secret, figure out why
and how they can be made more open. For instance currently.... I
suggest...." -- The same general statement --- only its connotation is
very different. Thats how I feel about it.
-Andy
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 07:18 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think most of the edginess is simply fear of the unknown.
>>> Many of the ASF Members, like Greg, have not had the
>>> opportunity to interact with the ASF Committers working at
>>> Jakarta. Likewise, nearly all of us working at Jakarta have
>>> only interacted with a handful of the ASF Members. For good or
>>> ill, many of the key management lists at other ASF Projects are
>>> restricted, making it difficult for us to learn by example.
>>> Happily, this list is starting to fill that gap by documenting
>>> some of the missing usuage examples. =:0)
>>
>>
>> I think the most of the edginess is ignorance or rejection of the
>> known, coupled with the most pessimistic possible assumptions of
>> anything that is unknown.
>>
>> How many folks have read the foundation pages at
>> http://www.apache.org/ before joining a project? The bylaws and public
>> records of ASF? Read about other ASF projects? Learned what it is
>> they're getting involved with? Googled a bit to find out how ASF
>> interacts with the world? Or to see how and why other projects in the
>> past have failed or succeeded?
>
> how many know they are supposed to? Googling is the solution? humm.
> Perhaps the most famous and capable web development organization should
> come up with a better method of organizing its web content than "go
> search on google for what it means to be part of the ASF"...
I'm not saying ASF shouldn't write stuff down. Perhaps we need an
asf-docs project, since lots of this is not written down because people
like to code, not doc.
I do think it's inaccurate to say that none of the information exists
elsewhere. And I don't think that saying it's not all written down yet
should be a valid excuse for not learning elsewhere. Would that reason
be valid for any of us not to do our jobs? We all do research to
understand what we need to write code; is it *that* unreasonable to
expect folks to do a little research in the same vein regarding ASF?
Writing things down and even mandating they must be read is not going to
get people who don't want to read them to do so. I am surprised that
people must be made to know they should read and learn more about ASF.
It seems to me like having to tell people they need to read the loan
terms before buying a car or house. IMO some of this *should* go without
saying.
>
>>
>> Why would one expect people to read everything yet to be written down
>> when it seems they have not read or want to read what is already
>> written down?
>
> Perhaps the bylaws are insuffiently disseminated. Sure its on the
> web... Sure its on the apache site...but have you read EVERYTHING on
> the apache site? OR do you read what you look for or what strikes you
> in the face immediately as being important. A basic rule of "send this
> link with this set of 'read this at minimum' to all committers" seems
> more sensible.
As opposed to expecting folks to want to learn about it? Pertaining to
discussions on this list and reorg@, is it reasonable to assume that
anyone *hasn't* read the bylaws?
> For instance, I'd like very much to link the text version of the
> committer for to the jakarta webized version. I hear its not on the
> web but its in CVS... I have absolutely freaking no idea where.. .
> Sure its there...but a needle in the haystack.
I am not saying this to be trite, but that's what tools are for. I use
the cshell alias
gff find !:1 -name "!:2" -exec grep "!:3" {} \; -print
a lot here.
>
>>
>>>
>>> I believe most of us are very eager to learn. Like many good
>>> developers, we are not eager to reinvent the wheel. Frameworks
>>> are a favorite topic at Jakarta, and I'm sure virtually all of
>>> us are ready, willing, and able to adopt the ASF framework.
>>> It's just most of us are still learning how the ASF
>>> architecture is suppose to work.
>>
>>
>> On the contrary, I see the wheel being reinvented right here, right
>> now. See the subject of this email. I think that is because people
>> either don't want to know, or know and wish to ignore anything that
>> doesn't agree with how they think things should work.
>
> I disagree. This evolved from a desire for greater openness in the ASF
> and a more inclusive framework. Perhaps people such as Sam already see
> themselves as viable members capable of evolving the process and are
> working out new ideas. Perhaps he feels the ASF should be more open
> and is working to improve upon it and is already familiar with the
> existing system.
Perhaps. Can you see that there are other interpretations possible?
Especially when it appears we are getting into a situation where we are
chasing our collective tail? Or it appears that we are simply inventing
process as we go here in the face of process that already exists?
>
>>
>> Why is it that the issue is framed as ASF needing to learn about
>> Jakarta, instead of as Jakarta needing to learn about the rest of the
>> world and its history? Is it possible to see that the perception may
>> well be that the community of committers that has arisen at Jakarta
>> wants to know about nothing other than itself?
>
> Perhaps that is not the most enlightened statement I've heard. Perhaps
> statements like this lead to disenfranchisement and make those Jakarta
> committers feel that way. Especially since you're attacking (I think)
> the very group whom have come here to try and bridge the gaps.
>
I made a statement about possible perception, not an accusation. I made
it to broach the radical idea that Jakarta folks might not be seeing
themselves in the light others are, and might also need to change
themselves as well as change ASF. I think we already agree that ASF
needs to change, and is doing so.
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
>
>>
>> I think most of the edginess is simply fear of the unknown.
>> Many of the ASF Members, like Greg, have not had the
>> opportunity to interact with the ASF Committers working at
>> Jakarta. Likewise, nearly all of us working at Jakarta have
>> only interacted with a handful of the ASF Members. For good or
>> ill, many of the key management lists at other ASF Projects are
>> restricted, making it difficult for us to learn by example.
>> Happily, this list is starting to fill that gap by documenting
>> some of the missing usuage examples. =:0)
>
>
> I think the most of the edginess is ignorance or rejection of the
> known, coupled with the most pessimistic possible assumptions of
> anything that is unknown.
>
> How many folks have read the foundation pages at
> http://www.apache.org/ before joining a project? The bylaws and public
> records of ASF? Read about other ASF projects? Learned what it is
> they're getting involved with? Googled a bit to find out how ASF
> interacts with the world? Or to see how and why other projects in the
> past have failed or succeeded?
how many know they are supposed to? Googling is the solution? humm.
Perhaps the most famous and capable web development organization should
come up with a better method of organizing its web content than "go
search on google for what it means to be part of the ASF"...
>
> Why would one expect people to read everything yet to be written down
> when it seems they have not read or want to read what is already
> written down?
Perhaps the bylaws are insuffiently disseminated. Sure its on the
web... Sure its on the apache site...but have you read EVERYTHING on the
apache site? OR do you read what you look for or what strikes you in
the face immediately as being important. A basic rule of "send this
link with this set of 'read this at minimum' to all committers" seems
more sensible.
For instance, I'd like very much to link the text version of the
committer for to the jakarta webized version. I hear its not on the web
but its in CVS... I have absolutely freaking no idea where.. . Sure its
there...but a needle in the haystack.
>
>>
>> I believe most of us are very eager to learn. Like many good
>> developers, we are not eager to reinvent the wheel. Frameworks
>> are a favorite topic at Jakarta, and I'm sure virtually all of
>> us are ready, willing, and able to adopt the ASF framework.
>> It's just most of us are still learning how the ASF
>> architecture is suppose to work.
>
>
> On the contrary, I see the wheel being reinvented right here, right
> now. See the subject of this email. I think that is because people
> either don't want to know, or know and wish to ignore anything that
> doesn't agree with how they think things should work.
I disagree. This evolved from a desire for greater openness in the ASF
and a more inclusive framework. Perhaps people such as Sam already see
themselves as viable members capable of evolving the process and are
working out new ideas. Perhaps he feels the ASF should be more open and
is working to improve upon it and is already familiar with the existing
system.
>
> Why is it that the issue is framed as ASF needing to learn about
> Jakarta, instead of as Jakarta needing to learn about the rest of the
> world and its history? Is it possible to see that the perception may
> well be that the community of committers that has arisen at Jakarta
> wants to know about nothing other than itself?
Perhaps that is not the most enlightened statement I've heard. Perhaps
statements like this lead to disenfranchisement and make those Jakarta
committers feel that way. Especially since you're attacking (I think)
the very group whom have come here to try and bridge the gaps.
-Andy
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ma...@isallineed.org>.
>
> How many folks have read the foundation pages at http://www.apache.org/
> before joining a project? The bylaws and public records of ASF? Read
> about other ASF projects? Learned what it is they're getting involved
> with? Googled a bit to find out how ASF interacts with the world? Or to
> see how and why other projects in the past have failed or succeeded?
To be specific to my situation : I use httpd (who doesn't;)) and I use a lot
of project that are on jakarta. You help others out on mailinglists,
encounter some problems, you send some patches, you send more patches, you
are nominated and become a committer to that project. Life goes on as
normal, untill you hear something about the board, PMC, elections (not
taling about voting rules, since you know them already big time by getting
involved in porjects), etc. You think hey intersting, what's that all about
;).
It's just a process of growth, which may evolve into bigger involvement in
apache itself (which makes you a possible candidate for membership).
It's nice to have some documents on all this stuff, but if you don't
experience it, it stays pretty much a document.
The same thing is with (almost) every newborn : he doesn't know everything
yet and should grow to get more involved or understand what "it" is all
about ;)
Mvgr,
Martin
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 10:29 PM, Ted Husted wrote:
> 10/29/2002 11:23:22 PM, Henri Yandell
> <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>> In terms of community fractures, I think the proposal to
>> promote Jakarta projects out of Jakarta [something I'm not
>> against] is the one that is a danger to the community. I think
>> this is why that community was originally defensive and still
>> hedgy.
>
> I think most of the edginess is simply fear of the unknown.
> Many of the ASF Members, like Greg, have not had the
> opportunity to interact with the ASF Committers working at
> Jakarta. Likewise, nearly all of us working at Jakarta have
> only interacted with a handful of the ASF Members. For good or
> ill, many of the key management lists at other ASF Projects are
> restricted, making it difficult for us to learn by example.
> Happily, this list is starting to fill that gap by documenting
> some of the missing usuage examples. =:0)
I think the most of the edginess is ignorance or rejection of the known,
coupled with the most pessimistic possible assumptions of anything that
is unknown.
How many folks have read the foundation pages at http://www.apache.org/
before joining a project? The bylaws and public records of ASF? Read
about other ASF projects? Learned what it is they're getting involved
with? Googled a bit to find out how ASF interacts with the world? Or to
see how and why other projects in the past have failed or succeeded?
Why would one expect people to read everything yet to be written down
when it seems they have not read or want to read what is already written
down?
>
> I believe most of us are very eager to learn. Like many good
> developers, we are not eager to reinvent the wheel. Frameworks
> are a favorite topic at Jakarta, and I'm sure virtually all of
> us are ready, willing, and able to adopt the ASF framework.
> It's just most of us are still learning how the ASF
> architecture is suppose to work.
On the contrary, I see the wheel being reinvented right here, right now.
See the subject of this email. I think that is because people either
don't want to know, or know and wish to ignore anything that doesn't
agree with how they think things should work.
>
> Meanwhile, the Community at Jakarta is based on the
> interactions between its Committers, not on a political body or
> a URL. The Community of Committers that has arisen at Jakarta
> is not going to go away become some products "earn their
> stripe" and are promoted to top level projects. It's true that
> some people have developed a certain "brand" loyalty to
> Jakarta, but I think that loyalty will easily transfer back to
> Apache, as we learn more about what "being Apache" means.
>
The political body and URLs arose from the interactions between
committers. Let's not forget that, or once again ignore it since we seem
to want things to be written down for us.
Let's see how current committer groups run as PMCs. Wouldn't you agree
that if they fail to govern themselves or their own projects
successfully, they would not make effective governors of others? Let me
be clear that I am not talking about generating code here.
I think there is clear evidence on this list that people are quite
willing to go ahead and change things they know or care nothing about.
The community of committers that has arisen at Jakarta may choose not to
be part of the greater community of ASF, as at last count at least some
of them were among 80% of committers not on this list.
Why is it that the issue is framed as ASF needing to learn about
Jakarta, instead of as Jakarta needing to learn about the rest of the
world and its history? Is it possible to see that the perception may
well be that the community of committers that has arisen at Jakarta
wants to know about nothing other than itself?
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
10/29/2002 11:23:22 PM, Henri Yandell
<ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:
>In terms of community fractures, I think the proposal to
>promote Jakarta projects out of Jakarta [something I'm not
>against] is the one that is a danger to the community. I think
>this is why that community was originally defensive and still
>hedgy.
I think most of the edginess is simply fear of the unknown.
Many of the ASF Members, like Greg, have not had the
opportunity to interact with the ASF Committers working at
Jakarta. Likewise, nearly all of us working at Jakarta have
only interacted with a handful of the ASF Members. For good or
ill, many of the key management lists at other ASF Projects are
restricted, making it difficult for us to learn by example.
Happily, this list is starting to fill that gap by documenting
some of the missing usuage examples. =:0)
I believe most of us are very eager to learn. Like many good
developers, we are not eager to reinvent the wheel. Frameworks
are a favorite topic at Jakarta, and I'm sure virtually all of
us are ready, willing, and able to adopt the ASF framework.
It's just most of us are still learning how the ASF
architecture is suppose to work.
Meanwhile, the Community at Jakarta is based on the
interactions between its Committers, not on a political body or
a URL. The Community of Committers that has arisen at Jakarta
is not going to go away become some products "earn their
stripe" and are promoted to top level projects. It's true that
some people have developed a certain "brand" loyalty to
Jakarta, but I think that loyalty will easily transfer back to
Apache, as we learn more about what "being Apache" means.
-Ted.
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> "But it works -- we have committers" "But it works -- Jakarta has produced
> some great code" "But it works -- ..." Well, yes to all of those. Sure it
> did. My concern is about the impact on the community, not the ability to get
> work done. And measuring the health of a community is quite a bit less
> objective. I never had the opportunity to interact or really view or hear
> about the ins-and-outs of the Jakarta community until these past two or
> three weeks. And you know what? I think it *is* fractured, and that is sad.
> I witnessed some straight-on personal attacks on the reorg@ list, and been
> privy to others due to my Board role. People actively stating they don't
> want to work with somebody or interact with them. I've never seen the like
> in the httpd and apr communities where we avoid talking about people
> publicly. Is there a causal link? Probably not, or if so, then very minor.
> But I don't want to test the hypothesis. I don't want to give any foothold
> for community fractures; it just isn't worth the risk.
I'm no expert on community-science [I assume there is one.
anthropology?sociology?] but it would seem to be an assumption to think
that a healthy community has to be a unified community. Jakarta could be
made up of sub-communities [there's enough cross-pollination that it's
hard to see this a bit, but there are also obvious tribes] which can quite
happily be at odds with each other from time to time and yet still improve
the surrounding communities well-being.
Another example of the same thing is this list. There has been a lot of
debate/argument, largely between two communities, but the result has been
positive.
In terms of community fractures, I think the proposal to promote Jakarta
projects out of Jakarta [something I'm not against] is the one that is a
danger to the community. I think this is why that community was originally
defensive and still hedgy.
That said, I am attacking your words from the wrong side. I agree with the
closed member-discussion lists.
Hen
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 06:51:35AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> > really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
> > environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
> > discussions really don't enhance the community.
>
> Greg,
>
> At a minimum, please acknowledge that a large number of ASF commiters
ACK
> have never participated in (or even have access to) private ASF mailing
> lists, have only seen commiter nominations done in public (and many have
> done so themselves), and the only PMC nominations that they have seen
> have also been done in the open (Jakarta, XML).
I already knew that. It doesn't change my thinking, though. The fact that it
happened doesn't mean it is good/bad, just that it happened that way.
Personally, I think it was bad. I had no place or right to say so, so I
didn't. But when that behavior impacts member nominations? i.e. the ASF
itself? Oh yah, then I'll add some commentary :-)
"But it works -- we have committers" "But it works -- Jakarta has produced
some great code" "But it works -- ..." Well, yes to all of those. Sure it
did. My concern is about the impact on the community, not the ability to get
work done. And measuring the health of a community is quite a bit less
objective. I never had the opportunity to interact or really view or hear
about the ins-and-outs of the Jakarta community until these past two or
three weeks. And you know what? I think it *is* fractured, and that is sad.
I witnessed some straight-on personal attacks on the reorg@ list, and been
privy to others due to my Board role. People actively stating they don't
want to work with somebody or interact with them. I've never seen the like
in the httpd and apr communities where we avoid talking about people
publicly. Is there a causal link? Probably not, or if so, then very minor.
But I don't want to test the hypothesis. I don't want to give any foothold
for community fractures; it just isn't worth the risk.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
> environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
> discussions really don't enhance the community.
Greg,
At a minimum, please acknowledge that a large number of ASF commiters
have never participated in (or even have access to) private ASF mailing
lists, have only seen commiter nominations done in public (and many have
done so themselves), and the only PMC nominations that they have seen
have also been done in the open (Jakarta, XML).
- Sam Ruby
Re: committers repos (was: ASF Membership Nomination)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> So what's the hackathon? [Beyond the obvious of people doing some kind of
> coding in a big session]. Does it have a focus, or completely open play
> etc?
ben laurie should answer this one, but i think he's semi-offline
the hackathon is two days of committers and invited contributors
getting face-time to network and hack on whatever they want, in
a single room with network access. (in london there were forty of
us and the network access was a single 56kbd dialup line, which
was amazing.)
> Another question to the community, will ApacheCon contain more in the way
> of Java project talks in the future? I'd always ignored ApacheCon
> information as in years passed Apache meant httpd to me. Looking at the
> upcoming one, there seem to be only two talks which would appeal to
> Jakarta as a community and both are quite vague and Tomcat focused.
we can only choose from the proposals we receive. if no-one submits
any java project talks, there won't be any at apachecon. at the moment
i don't think there is anyone from jakarta on the planning committee (which
i think should be populated with people with as broad a participation in
the asf as possible), so we have to consult people or wing it. but mostly
it's the number of submissions received.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
ApacheCon & Jakarta (was committers repos)
Posted by Erik Hatcher <er...@ehatchersolutions.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
> Another question to the community, will ApacheCon contain more in the way
> of Java project talks in the future? I'd always ignored ApacheCon
> information as in years passed Apache meant httpd to me. Looking at the
> upcoming one, there seem to be only two talks which would appeal to
> Jakarta as a community and both are quite vague and Tomcat focused.
Here are the sessions I see that are Jakarta related:
TU02 - Cocoon (its Java afterall!)
TU06 - abstract says Jetspeed
TU14 - this is me and Ant :) - and not Tomcat related at all
TU16 - I'm bummed because this one is while I'm speaking, but its on
Axis, which is Java.
WE02 - BSF, again, very Java related
WE06 - What is more Jakarta than Struts and Craig McClanahan? :)
WE08 - Xerces-J
WE16 - Tomcat
TH02 - Turbine
TH06 - Commercial software and Jakarta
TH13 - LDAP, but it mentions Java in the categories
TH20 - Tomcat and Security
TH22 - Looks Java/Axis-centric to me
> There are some xml ones which might be of interest to the community.
Yes, lots of XML above, but all seem quite relevant to most Jakarta
folks, I think.
So it seems Jakarta is much better represented than one might think just
from the talk titles (I drilled into each one to get the list above).
See you there?! :)
Erik
Re: committers repos (was: ASF Membership Nomination)
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Tue, 29 Oct 2002, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:50:59AM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
> >...
> > What about using CVS for this? Can only committers
> > checkout the "committers" module? (I see that it is
> > not available via ViewCVS.)
>
> Yes, the committers repos is only available to committers. Its absence from
> ViewCVS is probably more of an oversight than intended, but that *is* the
> correct standpoint. The repos contains committer-private information; in
> particular, the hackathon signup sheet is there -- the hackathon is not a
> public event.
>
So what's the hackathon? [Beyond the obvious of people doing some kind of
coding in a big session]. Does it have a focus, or completely open play
etc?
Another question to the community, will ApacheCon contain more in the way
of Java project talks in the future? I'd always ignored ApacheCon
information as in years passed Apache meant httpd to me. Looking at the
upcoming one, there seem to be only two talks which would appeal to
Jakarta as a community and both are quite vague and Tomcat focused.
There are some xml ones which might be of interest to the community.
Is this normal for ApacheCon? Or just an oddity. If it is normal, why is
it normal? I think the answer to that might be enlightening.
> I've been thinking about putting a list of all the top-level projects in
> there and detailing who is on the PMC for each, along with the chair. Partly
> for my own benefit when I need to mail the PMC Chairs for their reports to
> the Board :-)
+1. Knowing the scope/size of the community is a good way to understand
the community and become a part of the community.
Hen
RE: committers repos (was: ASF Membership Nomination)
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
I cant think of anything I want to put in here, but would it be worth having a guideline like..
"commiters can put anything in commiters/personal/~username" ?
> That repository is open to all committers. While we don't want each person
> to have a field day in there, I'd also point out that you *can*
> put whatever
> you think is appropriate into it. Just try to be considerate about the
> structure you use. Until we switch to Subversion, CVS is rather stiff with
> its directory layout :-)
committers repos (was: ASF Membership Nomination)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 12:50:59AM +1100, David Crossley wrote:
>...
> What about using CVS for this? Can only committers
> checkout the "committers" module? (I see that it is
> not available via ViewCVS.)
Yes, the committers repos is only available to committers. Its absence from
ViewCVS is probably more of an oversight than intended, but that *is* the
correct standpoint. The repos contains committer-private information; in
particular, the hackathon signup sheet is there -- the hackathon is not a
public event.
I've been thinking about putting a list of all the top-level projects in
there and detailing who is on the PMC for each, along with the chair. Partly
for my own benefit when I need to mail the PMC Chairs for their reports to
the Board :-)
> If so then that makes it
> a semi-private place. Each project could have their own
> document (e.g. cocoon-new-committers.txt) where we discuss
> via editing the file.
>
> This also helps to keep track of various developers that
> we may want to invite later. Too often i have seen people
> overlooked because we have just plain forgotten to invite
> them.
That repository is open to all committers. While we don't want each person
to have a field day in there, I'd also point out that you *can* put whatever
you think is appropriate into it. Just try to be considerate about the
structure you use. Until we switch to Subversion, CVS is rather stiff with
its directory layout :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
> > No, not a PMC. I mean a method for *all* committers of a
> > project to be able to discuss certain things in private.
>
> Heh, it's the project that rules how the PMC is composed! I will be in
> favor of making every committer that wants to be part of the PMC, part
> of it. Like it happens on HTTPD.
>
> The PMC concept, in fact, was designed after *that*!
>
> >
> > I notice that you expressed similar reasoning to my first
> > paragraph, in your other reply to this thread. It was the
> > success of that small-group off-line proposal and subsequent
> > on-line vote of Nicola Ken committer, that sparked my reply too.
>
> Yes, I noticed this.
>
> But think about it: if cocoon is a project and all the committers that
> care enough are part of the PMC and are the legal protectors of the code
> and there is one official representative that talks directly to the
> board and can report problems or achievements. Wouldn't it be all much
> lighter and clean?
Aha, thanks, now it is all clear. The PMCs are the missing link.
... a place to discuss certain occasional private project issues.
I was under the impression that PMCs were a subset of committers,
but now i see that it can be all who are interested. That solves
it - i can now go and vote for "community" list to be fully open.
--David
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> No, not a PMC. I mean a method for *all* committers of a
> project to be able to discuss certain things in private.
Heh, it's the project that rules how the PMC is composed! I will be in
favor of making every committer that wants to be part of the PMC, part
of it. Like it happens on HTTPD.
The PMC concept, in fact, was designed after *that*!
>
> I notice that you expressed similar reasoning to my first
> paragraph, in your other reply to this thread. It was the
> success of that small-group off-line proposal and subsequent
> on-line vote of Nicola Ken committer, that sparked my reply too.
Yes, I noticed this.
But think about it: if cocoon is a project and all the committers that
care enough are part of the PMC and are the legal protectors of the code
and there is one official representative that talks directly to the
board and can report problems or achievements. Wouldn't it be all much
lighter and clean?
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <cr...@apache.org>.
On 30 Oct 2002, David Crossley wrote:
>
> Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> > David Crossley wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > what you are talking about is a PMC. If (when?) Cocoon will be upgraded
> > to be a fully recognized and structured ASF project, we'll have a PMC
> > exactly for those discussions and the PMC mail list (for legal and
> > security reasons) will have to be private.
>
> No, not a PMC. I mean a method for *all* committers of a
> project to be able to discuss certain things in private.
> I notice that you expressed similar reasoning to my first
> paragraph, in your other reply to this thread. It was the
> success of that small-group off-line proposal and subsequent
> on-line vote of Nicola Ken committer, that sparked my reply too.
Interestingly, the TOMCAT-DEV list just had a conversation about the topic
of a committers-only list. The purpose there was not to discuss PMC-like
things -- the idea was to have a forum to discuss solutions to potential
or actual security vulnerabilities, before they became public knowledge,
so that a fixed version of Tomcat could be made available. This was in
response to the typical patterns of such discussion (private email thread
with cc's to all the committers you think might be interested), which
proved to be inefficient and potentially left important contributors out
of the loop.
The general response to this idea on TOMCAT-DEV was negative -- ranging
from concerns that development direction decisions would be made in
private and then announced to the world, all the way to your typical
conspiracy theorist's worst nightmares. The idea has yet to be
implemeted, but I suspect it will end up being done.
Personally, I thought this was a pretty good answer to a particular
demonstrated need to communicate in a less-open forum (in spite of my
general prediliction towards open communications). Yet, even that
pretty obvious need was not enough to avoid quite a lot of knee-jerk
reaction.
Come to think of it, the reaction was quite similar to the lambasting
that the Jakarta PMC got about a year ago, based on the theory that lots
of decisions were being made "behind closed doors" (trust me -- I was
there -- they weren't). I guess this all might say something about the
Jakarta sub-culture being somewhat different than the rest of Apache
(which was also reflected, to some degree, in the "open mailing list"
vote) ...
> --David
>
Craig
> > The ASF architecture is very well designed. Just it was not designed for
> > containers like jakarta and xml. And this is why we are sometimes
> > suffering or having to resort to our own stuff.
> >
> > --
> > Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > >Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> > >really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
> > >environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
> > >discussions really don't enhance the community.
> >
> >
> > Totally agree. Every community needs a place to discuss
> > some limited things in private. Sure on cocoon-dev we
> > discuss the actual vote for a new committer in public.
> > However prior to that some sub-set of committers might
> > discuss a proposed committer off-list. Sometimes we have
> > said "no not yet, let us wait a while for such-and-such
> > reason". This is a problem because only some of the
> > committers are involved. So we do need a private forum
> > where all project committers can discuss.
> >
> > What about using CVS for this? Can only committers
> > checkout the "committers" module? (I see that it is
> > not available via ViewCVS.) If so then that makes it
> > a semi-private place. Each project could have their own
> > document (e.g. cocoon-new-committers.txt) where we discuss
> > via editing the file.
> >
> > This also helps to keep track of various developers that
> > we may want to invite later. Too often i have seen people
> > overlooked because we have just plain forgotten to invite
> > them.
>
> David,
>
> what you are talking about is a PMC. If (when?) Cocoon will be upgraded
> to be a fully recognized and structured ASF project, we'll have a PMC
> exactly for those discussions and the PMC mail list (for legal and
> security reasons) will have to be private.
No, not a PMC. I mean a method for *all* committers of a
project to be able to discuss certain things in private.
I notice that you expressed similar reasoning to my first
paragraph, in your other reply to this thread. It was the
success of that small-group off-line proposal and subsequent
on-line vote of Nicola Ken committer, that sparked my reply too.
--David
> The ASF architecture is very well designed. Just it was not designed for
> containers like jakarta and xml. And this is why we are sometimes
> suffering or having to resort to our own stuff.
>
> --
> Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Tuesday, October 29, 2002, at 06:27 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> David Crossley wrote:
>
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC
>> membership
>> >really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
>> >environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds
>> of
>> >discussions really don't enhance the community.
>>
>>
>> Totally agree. Every community needs a place to discuss
>> some limited things in private. Sure on cocoon-dev we
>> discuss the actual vote for a new committer in public.
>> However prior to that some sub-set of committers might
>> discuss a proposed committer off-list. Sometimes we have
>> said "no not yet, let us wait a while for such-and-such
>> reason". This is a problem because only some of the
>> committers are involved. So we do need a private forum
>> where all project committers can discuss.
>>
>> What about using CVS for this? Can only committers
>> checkout the "committers" module? (I see that it is
>> not available via ViewCVS.) If so then that makes it
>> a semi-private place. Each project could have their own
>> document (e.g. cocoon-new-committers.txt) where we discuss
>> via editing the file.
>>
>> This also helps to keep track of various developers that
>> we may want to invite later. Too often i have seen people
>> overlooked because we have just plain forgotten to invite
>> them.
>
> David,
>
> what you are talking about is a PMC. If (when?) Cocoon will be upgraded
> to be a fully recognized and structured ASF project, we'll have a PMC
> exactly for those discussions and the PMC mail list (for legal and
> security reasons) will have to be private.
>
> The ASF architecture is very well designed. Just it was not designed
> for containers like jakarta and xml. And this is why we are sometimes
> suffering or having to resort to our own stuff.
>
One additional point. It has been found that PMCs work very well when
they are composed of as many project committers as possible - ideally
all of them, but reserving opt-out for those who wish not to be there.
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
David Crossley wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>
>
> >Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> >really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
> >environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
> >discussions really don't enhance the community.
>
>
> Totally agree. Every community needs a place to discuss
> some limited things in private. Sure on cocoon-dev we
> discuss the actual vote for a new committer in public.
> However prior to that some sub-set of committers might
> discuss a proposed committer off-list. Sometimes we have
> said "no not yet, let us wait a while for such-and-such
> reason". This is a problem because only some of the
> committers are involved. So we do need a private forum
> where all project committers can discuss.
>
> What about using CVS for this? Can only committers
> checkout the "committers" module? (I see that it is
> not available via ViewCVS.) If so then that makes it
> a semi-private place. Each project could have their own
> document (e.g. cocoon-new-committers.txt) where we discuss
> via editing the file.
>
> This also helps to keep track of various developers that
> we may want to invite later. Too often i have seen people
> overlooked because we have just plain forgotten to invite
> them.
David,
what you are talking about is a PMC. If (when?) Cocoon will be upgraded
to be a fully recognized and structured ASF project, we'll have a PMC
exactly for those discussions and the PMC mail list (for legal and
security reasons) will have to be private.
The ASF architecture is very well designed. Just it was not designed for
containers like jakarta and xml. And this is why we are sometimes
suffering or having to resort to our own stuff.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@indexgeo.com.au>.
Greg Stein wrote:
<snip excellent stuff/>
> Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
> environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
> discussions really don't enhance the community.
Totally agree. Every community needs a place to discuss
some limited things in private. Sure on cocoon-dev we
discuss the actual vote for a new committer in public.
However prior to that some sub-set of committers might
discuss a proposed committer off-list. Sometimes we have
said "no not yet, let us wait a while for such-and-such
reason". This is a problem because only some of the
committers are involved. So we do need a private forum
where all project committers can discuss.
What about using CVS for this? Can only committers
checkout the "committers" module? (I see that it is
not available via ViewCVS.) If so then that makes it
a semi-private place. Each project could have their own
document (e.g. cocoon-new-committers.txt) where we discuss
via editing the file.
This also helps to keep track of various developers that
we may want to invite later. Too often i have seen people
overlooked because we have just plain forgotten to invite
them.
--David
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@wow.lk>.
A big +1 to what Greg just wrote ..
In any case, since I've not seen any membership nominations
prior to the two this week, I'm surprised to see them in the
most public list of Apache.
I've been lurking on this discussion so far, but it seems to
me that it would be really good for folks to slow down with
changes, nominations, PMCs and the like while the raging
discussion is going on. It seems to me that there's some soul
searching going on right now and until we find it IMHO its best
to back off and chill with the minute-to-minute changes.
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Stein" <gs...@lyra.org>
To: <co...@apache.org>; <mo...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: ASF Membership Nomination
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:04:35PM -0800, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> > --- Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:mdelagra@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:36
> > >
> > > >> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem with nominations in a forum that does
> > > >> not perfectly match the voting body is that it makes it
> > > >> difficult to hold discussions about the nominee in a fair way.
> > > >> Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the members@apache.org.
>
> I completely agree. Much in the same way that committer access and PMC
> membership is voted on within the PMC confines.
>
> > > > I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire away.
> > > > I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see what
> > > > goes into the evaluation process. If you're really
> > > > concerned about keeping your opinion on me private,
> > > > you can post it to members instead, but I assure you
> > > > that I'm OK with criticism.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and know
> > > > why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
>
> Actually, it has *very* little to do with how you feel, but what happens
to
> the entire community when something like this occurs.
>
> > > It is not only for the nominee but also for the voting body.
> > > When someone other than a fellow voter is looking at you
> > > expectantly, people tend to act differently. [Try stuffing
> > > a camera in someones face and see if you can spot behaviour
> > > changes.]
> > >
> > > In a sense this is influencing the voting body, whether positive
> > > or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate IMO.
>
> Yup.
>
> >...
> > I'd stop short of saying that using a public forum is
> > "inappropriate", but I think you've correctly
> > identified some disadvantages.
>
> Oh, Sander hasn't even come close :-)
>
> The problem with discussing people in public is that it is *extremely*
> divisive and polarizing to the community. No matter how well-intentioned
it
> may be, or how thick the recipient's skin is... such a discussion
*creates*
> factions within the community.
>
> Let's say that I came out and said, "Morgan? Oh, I don't think so. The
> postings that I've seen from him do not mesh well with the long-term
ideals
> of what the ASF is all about. He represents himself and his community in
> Jakarta Commosn, but isn't concerned about the ASF except to give him more
> protection for his corner of the world."
>
> What would happen?
>
> * you're okay with it. no problem.
>
> * people who know you now take a couple actions
> - they put themselves into the "pro-Morgan" camp and me in the
> "anti-Morgan" camp.
> - where I stated an opinion, they now turn it into a debate on your
merits
> and the list devolves into "but look at what Morgan has done" or "see
> how he has contributed" while I was only trying to state an opinion on
> what I had seen
>
> * people who aren't familiar with the situation place themselves into the
> "oh, whatever" camp and start dropping the debators into the other
camps.
>
> * people who agree with my position "align themselves" with my opinion,
> again creating factions
> - if they post a support email for me, then the other members of the
> community place that support into the anti-Morgan camp
> - and we're back to the spin/discussion on your merits/anti-merits
>
> * BIG ITEM: my quote above was merely an example. but I *EDITED* the
damned
> thing. I didn't even realize it until I got to this part of my email.
the
> original hypothesis was that it would be posted in a public forum. my
> original text was "Morgan? oh, fuck that. ..." but while writing that, I
> thought, "oh. this is for a public forum, so I wouldn't have phrased it
so
> strongly. let me tone down the example." thus, my supposed, original
> motivations against you have been toned down. the other readers are not
> going to get the full brunt of my opinion because I had to tone it down
> for a public forum.
>
> and this is just an *example*... what if it were real?
>
> * future opinions are now muddied. people in the pro-Morgan camp will
always
> take my words with an bad highlight over them. "oh, he doesn't like
> Morgan. he has bad opinions." or when we have a technical debate, people
> will question, "is this truly a technical debate, or is this based on
his
> original anti-morgan stance?"
>
> > I'd offer two potential advantages in response: 1)
> > members can pose questions directly to the candidate,
>
> Always possible. A public forum is not necessary for this. As Pier stated
in
> another email, he spoke with Justin via IRC. Stuff like that and emails
are
> quite doable. The posting of a nomination and discussion about the
pros/cons
> of a person in public does not create any particular advantage for talking
> with the nominee.
>
> > and 2) other non-members get to see what goes into the
> > selection process. I'd say the second is the more
> > significant. We've already asserted that member
> > selection is qualitative in nature and varies from
> > case-to-case. By debating on a forum available to
> > other committers, non-members can witness some of the
> > selection criteria as they evolve.
>
> Yes, for better or worse, it is a highly subjective process which means
> there is really no way to extract useful rules.
>
> But "debate" is an awful thing to get into when you're talking about a
> person. It is the single-most and quickest way to create divisiveness,
> factions, and polarization within a community.
>
> Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
> environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
> discussions really don't enhance the community.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Bill Stoddard <bi...@wstoddard.com>.
>
> Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
> really should be private.
Absolutely.
Bill
[Proposal] Compromise was: Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Tradeoffs with the old and new method:
1. doing it privately tends to perpetuate the closed mysterious nature
of it (good ol boys club). Another way of looking at this would be in
relationship to the Cocoon project. The less documented aspects of it
are less used outside of the cocoon developer community and the
undocumented nature of much of it prevents its widespead adoption in a
number of locations. However this has begun to change, the project
information is starting to become shared through the efforts of people
like Steven Noles. Secondly, a number of books have started to be
written on the subject. This has improved the project substantially
IMHO and recent designs are starting to be better thought out and are
including new ideas not before approached such as XMLForm by this fellow
named Ivelin.
2. doing it publically could result in hurt feelings and divisiveness
and the instances Stefano gave...
Possible Compromise
1. Nominations could take place on the Community list. Social contract
be to only say nice things on the list and offer feedback to the
members@ list if its negative. Negative comments made on the community
list are rebuked and noted as unproductive and in bad spirit. Nothing
nice said is probably a good indication of lack of support or everyone
is busy ;-)
2. Voting and any negative discussion happens on the members@ list
Tradeoffs:
1. Still somewhat closed but still more open.
2. The person proposed is hinted to be on their best behavior so they
can't act like me ;-)
3. The person can just wonder who doesn't love them ;-)
I think 3 is moderated by the idea that I figure probably most folks are
asked if they'd accept the nomination beforehand anyhow so I doubt they
don't know in advance.
Any additional thoughts?
-Andy
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> James Cox wrote:
>
>> >You make a lot of good points. Let me be devil's
>> >advocate and make a couple explicit points that I
>> >think you imply above:
>> >
>> >1) ASF membership is very important
>> >2) ASF membership is more likely to be contentious
>> >than other decisions for that reason
>> >
>> >Perhaps some middle ground could be reached? A public
>> >discussion on merits followed by a private debate?
>> >Leave the decision of whether or not to address the
>> >candidate directly to each member? Maybe at the end
>> >of the day, the community list is the wrong place for
>> >the ultimate resolution of the process, but it may be
>> >a useful auxiliary tool.
>> >
>>
>> +1.
>>
>> Greg, you make -- as always -- some very fine points, however Morgan has
>> really pointed it out here. This is an important issue, but sometimes
>> it's
>> nice to have a general forum to gauge opinion :)
>
>
> Don't know if you guys are familiar with the architectural concept of
> 'Inversion of Control' (IoC).
>
> If not, please read
>
> http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/guide-patterns-ioc.html
>
> This is also called 'the hollywood principle': don't call us, we call
> you.
>
> The ASF adopts the pattern of IoC when proposing new members: that
> means: one gets called only when voted in. Otherwise, life continues
> with no problems.
>
> This allows, for example, resolutions like "I think he/she is not
> ready yet". I would personally be very pissed if somebody told me that
> I'm not ready *yet*, because if they assume I will be, then why don't
> they vote me in now? and maybe that impatient attitude is exactly what
> they want me to learn.
>
> I think Sam is mistaken thinking that openess = better and committers
> nomination = members nomination always.
>
> So, I think we should stick with the old IoC nomination model of
> members proposing a committer on members@apache.org, and, if voted in,
> presented the membership here on community@ and, if voted out, keeping
> this silent.
>
> But I might well be wrong.
>
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
James Cox wrote:
> >You make a lot of good points. Let me be devil's
> >advocate and make a couple explicit points that I
> >think you imply above:
> >
> >1) ASF membership is very important
> >2) ASF membership is more likely to be contentious
> >than other decisions for that reason
> >
> >Perhaps some middle ground could be reached? A public
> >discussion on merits followed by a private debate?
> >Leave the decision of whether or not to address the
> >candidate directly to each member? Maybe at the end
> >of the day, the community list is the wrong place for
> >the ultimate resolution of the process, but it may be
> >a useful auxiliary tool.
> >
>
> +1.
>
> Greg, you make -- as always -- some very fine points, however Morgan has
> really pointed it out here. This is an important issue, but sometimes it's
> nice to have a general forum to gauge opinion :)
Don't know if you guys are familiar with the architectural concept of
'Inversion of Control' (IoC).
If not, please read
http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/framework/guide-patterns-ioc.html
This is also called 'the hollywood principle': don't call us, we call you.
The ASF adopts the pattern of IoC when proposing new members: that
means: one gets called only when voted in. Otherwise, life continues
with no problems.
This allows, for example, resolutions like "I think he/she is not ready
yet". I would personally be very pissed if somebody told me that I'm not
ready *yet*, because if they assume I will be, then why don't they vote
me in now? and maybe that impatient attitude is exactly what they want
me to learn.
I think Sam is mistaken thinking that openess = better and committers
nomination = members nomination always.
So, I think we should stick with the old IoC nomination model of members
proposing a committer on members@apache.org, and, if voted in, presented
the membership here on community@ and, if voted out, keeping this silent.
But I might well be wrong.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by James Cox <ja...@imajes.info>.
>
> You make a lot of good points. Let me be devil's
> advocate and make a couple explicit points that I
> think you imply above:
>
> 1) ASF membership is very important
> 2) ASF membership is more likely to be contentious
> than other decisions for that reason
>
> Perhaps some middle ground could be reached? A public
> discussion on merits followed by a private debate?
> Leave the decision of whether or not to address the
> candidate directly to each member? Maybe at the end
> of the day, the community list is the wrong place for
> the ultimate resolution of the process, but it may be
> a useful auxiliary tool.
>
+1.
Greg, you make -- as always -- some very fine points, however Morgan has
really pointed it out here. This is an important issue, but sometimes it's
nice to have a general forum to gauge opinion :)
-- james
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Morgan Delagrange <md...@yahoo.com>.
Hey Greg,
--- Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:04:35PM -0800, Morgan
> Delagrange wrote:
> > --- Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > From: Morgan Delagrange
> [mailto:mdelagra@yahoo.com]
> > > > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:36
> > >
> > > >> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem with nominations in a forum that
> does
> > > >> not perfectly match the voting body is that
> it makes it
> > > >> difficult to hold discussions about the
> nominee in a fair way.
> > > >> Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the
> members@apache.org.
>
> I completely agree. Much in the same way that
> committer access and PMC
> membership is voted on within the PMC confines.
>
> > > > I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire
> away.
> > > > I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to
> see what
> > > > goes into the evaluation process. If you're
> really
> > > > concerned about keeping your opinion on me
> private,
> > > > you can post it to members instead, but I
> assure you
> > > > that I'm OK with criticism.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public
> and know
> > > > why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
>
> Actually, it has *very* little to do with how you
> feel, but what happens to
> the entire community when something like this
> occurs.
Probably. I think I was just responding to a specific
statement from Ken, where he said he wanted to spare
the rod.
> > > It is not only for the nominee but also for the
> voting body.
> > > When someone other than a fellow voter is
> looking at you
> > > expectantly, people tend to act differently.
> [Try stuffing
> > > a camera in someones face and see if you can
> spot behaviour
> > > changes.]
> > >
> > > In a sense this is influencing the voting body,
> whether positive
> > > or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate
> IMO.
>
> Yup.
>
> >...
> > I'd stop short of saying that using a public forum
> is
> > "inappropriate", but I think you've correctly
> > identified some disadvantages.
>
> Oh, Sander hasn't even come close :-)
>
> The problem with discussing people in public is that
> it is *extremely*
> divisive and polarizing to the community. No matter
> how well-intentioned it
> may be, or how thick the recipient's skin is... such
> a discussion *creates*
> factions within the community.
>
> Let's say that I came out and said, "Morgan? Oh, I
> don't think so. The
> postings that I've seen from him do not mesh well
> with the long-term ideals
> of what the ASF is all about. He represents himself
> and his community in
> Jakarta Commosn, but isn't concerned about the ASF
> except to give him more
> protection for his corner of the world."
LOL! Love the example. OK, so let's suppose that
your opinion is that "Morgan" isn't concerned with the
ASF except insofar as it protects his subproject...
> What would happen?
>
> * you're okay with it. no problem.
Unlikely. "Morgan" might respect your opinion, but I
suspect he'll defend his position. The way in which
he defends that position is as important as the
message he tries to convey.
> * people who know you now take a couple actions
> - they put themselves into the "pro-Morgan" camp
> and me in the
> "anti-Morgan" camp.
Quite possible. At which point you would explain that
you're not "anti-Morgan" per se, but only that you're
not sure he's right for ASF membership. Then you'd
explain that ASF members are "dedicated, long-term"
participants in the Apache Way, and you'd explain in
more detail why Morgan doesn't get it.
Then Morgan would probably say something about how
much he respects Greg's opinions and supports his
right to it, and then no doubt spout some drivel
supporting his position and explain away his ignorance
of the Apache Way.
OR...
Morgan would explode and the voting members would say,
"wow, this guy doesn't look like he's very
reasonable."
If members have reservations about a candidate, how
can they allay these fears without seeing the
candidate "in action", so to speak?
> - where I stated an opinion, they now turn it into
> a debate on your merits
> and the list devolves into "but look at what
> Morgan has done" or "see
> how he has contributed" while I was only trying
> to state an opinion on
> what I had seen
Aren't Morgan's contributions valid to the discussion?
Actions speak louder than words, after all. Of
course, that doesn't make your opinion invalid either,
and I'd expect that you'd defend it vigorously.
> * people who aren't familiar with the situation
> place themselves into the
> "oh, whatever" camp and start dropping the
> debators into the other camps.
That's inevitable, whether or not the discussion
happens on members. Most of the members will not have
worked with the candidate. Actually, this reorg list
is the only cross-project discussion most of us
non-members have ever seen, and I think it's doing a
lot of good for that reason.
> * people who agree with my position "align
> themselves" with my opinion,
> again creating factions
> - if they post a support email for me, then the
> other members of the
> community place that support into the
> anti-Morgan camp
> - and we're back to the spin/discussion on your
> merits/anti-merits
Sure the discussion might get a little heated. But
we're talking about ASF membership here, it's a big
deal. Be tough. If a candidate can't support his
credentials without resorting to insults and tirades,
what kind of ASF member would he be?
> * BIG ITEM: my quote above was merely an example.
> but I *EDITED* the damned
> thing. I didn't even realize it until I got to
> this part of my email. the
> original hypothesis was that it would be posted in
> a public forum. my
> original text was "Morgan? oh, fuck that. ..." but
> while writing that, I
> thought, "oh. this is for a public forum, so I
> wouldn't have phrased it so
> strongly. let me tone down the example." thus, my
> supposed, original
> motivations against you have been toned down. the
> other readers are not
> going to get the full brunt of my opinion because
> I had to tone it down
> for a public forum.
I think you tone it down not just because of the
public forum, but because you have to make an argument
to which the candidate can respond. I think that's
positive. If you had actually said "Morgan? oh, fuck
that. ...", I'd hope other members would say, "syntax
error, please refrase in the form of constructive
criticism".
> and this is just an *example*... what if it were
> real?
>
> * future opinions are now muddied. people in the
> pro-Morgan camp will always
> take my words with an bad highlight over them.
> "oh, he doesn't like
> Morgan. he has bad opinions." or when we have a
> technical debate, people
> will question, "is this truly a technical debate,
> or is this based on his
> original anti-morgan stance?"
That's possible. I've worked on several Jakarta
subprojects, all of which conduct committer
nominations _exclusively_ in public forums. Arguments
over nominations have been so infrequent that I cannot
actually recall a single instance.
There is the infamous incident where someone (I forget
who) vetoed a committer nomination on Tomcat. I don't
work on that subproject, but had I been there at the
time, I would have defended that person's right to his
opinion, even if I disagreed with the opinion itself.
> > I'd offer two potential advantages in response: 1)
> > members can pose questions directly to the
> candidate,
>
> Always possible. A public forum is not necessary for
> this. As Pier stated in
> another email, he spoke with Justin via IRC. Stuff
> like that and emails are
> quite doable. The posting of a nomination and
> discussion about the pros/cons
> of a person in public does not create any particular
> advantage for talking
> with the nominee.
Good point.
> > and 2) other non-members get to see what goes into
> the
> > selection process. I'd say the second is the more
> > significant. We've already asserted that member
> > selection is qualitative in nature and varies from
> > case-to-case. By debating on a forum available to
> > other committers, non-members can witness some of
> the
> > selection criteria as they evolve.
>
> Yes, for better or worse, it is a highly subjective
> process which means
> there is really no way to extract useful rules.
>
> But "debate" is an awful thing to get into when
> you're talking about a
> person. It is the single-most and quickest way to
> create divisiveness,
> factions, and polarization within a community.
>
> Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit
> status, or PMC membership
> really should be private. I absolutely will not
> participate in such an
> environment, and will encourage others to avoid it
> also. These kinds of
> discussions really don't enhance the community.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
You make a lot of good points. Let me be devil's
advocate and make a couple explicit points that I
think you imply above:
1) ASF membership is very important
2) ASF membership is more likely to be contentious
than other decisions for that reason
Perhaps some middle ground could be reached? A public
discussion on merits followed by a private debate?
Leave the decision of whether or not to address the
candidate directly to each member? Maybe at the end
of the day, the community list is the wrong place for
the ultimate resolution of the process, but it may be
a useful auxiliary tool.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
http://axion.tigris.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
Thats pretty much the way that things operate in projects I participate in
aswell.
On Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:22, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> True, but it happened several times in the projects I supervised or
> being part of, that committers seeked consensus privately exactly not to
> influence the person.
>
> Nicola, for example (I'm citing this because he knows so no harm is
> done), was proposed for commit access in a private multi-CCed email and
> turned down by me since I thought he needed more time to 'tune' to how
> things were working on the mail list.
>
> Note: publicly, I never had to turn down any committer and I think I
> voted in several tens of them.
>
> Anyway, he was proposed for commit access a few months later and voted
> in with no negative vote. He not only proved his skills, but the ability
> to learn from his mistakes.
>
> If voted down pubblicly the first time, I have the impression that he
> would have left, with big disadvantage of everyone, himself first.
>
> So, I think that proposing nominations in public does no harm if there
> reasonable estimation that nobody would be against it. But, in any other
> case, a private votation will serve the person nominated best.
>
> At least, that has been my experience.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*----------------------------------------------------------*
The phrase "computer literate user" really means the person
has been hurt so many times that the scar tissue is thick
enough so he no longer feels the pain.
-- Alan Cooper, The Inmates are Running the Asylum
*----------------------------------------------------------*
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> While I would like to continue with open processes that are kept private
> only when specific events require it.
>
> Why? mostly because of the perception given to the people.
>
> Perception is important, expecially in building a community.
>
> But at the end, I think there is very little difference between the two
> processes technically, what is important is just the perception given to
> the people of the community.
>
> And I think this list shows that Jakarta is much healthier than the rest
> of the ASF in that respect. Even if, sometimes, they have been even
> *too* open.
>
> But keeping things balanced is a very difficult thing.
+1
- Sam Ruby
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 31 Oct 2002 04:58, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> I would ask if it has ever been asked if there is a downside to total
> openness.
>
> I would also say that my experience has been that total openness on
> these sorts of projects has resulted merely in all the private
> discussion going out of band, so almost everyone gets to feel equal in
> their exclusion.
Thats pretty much how it happens in projects I am involved in (which are at
Jakarta).
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-------------------------------------------------------
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme
excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the
enemy's resistance without fighting. - Sun Tzu, 300 B.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Chuck Murcko <ch...@topsail.org>.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2002, at 06:37 AM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> While I would like to continue with open processes that are kept
> private only when specific events require it.
> Why? mostly because of the perception given to the people.
> Perception is important, expecially in building a community.
> But at the end, I think there is very little difference between the two
> processes technically, what is important is just the perception given
> to the people of the community.
> And I think this list shows that Jakarta is much healthier than the
> rest of the ASF in that respect. Even if, sometimes, they have been
> even *too* open.
> But keeping things balanced is a very difficult thing.
>
I would ask if it has ever been asked if there is a downside to total
openness.
I would also say that my experience has been that total openness on
these sorts of projects has resulted merely in all the private
discussion going out of band, so almost everyone gets to feel equal in
their exclusion.
Chuck
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> The irony here is that by attempting to come to a pre-concensus the
> vote and discussion turned inadvertently private, which by its mere
> existance shows that the public system failed.
This reasoning would be correct if you implicitly assume that the notion
of private nominations doesn't have a social impact on the perception of
openess of the community.
> I would much rather have
> the situation we have now in the httpd or members lists where nominations
> are made to everyone (and exclusively to everyone) would will have to
> vote on that nomination.
While I would like to continue with open processes that are kept private
only when specific events require it.
Why? mostly because of the perception given to the people.
Perception is important, expecially in building a community.
But at the end, I think there is very little difference between the two
processes technically, what is important is just the perception given to
the people of the community.
And I think this list shows that Jakarta is much healthier than the rest
of the ASF in that respect. Even if, sometimes, they have been even
*too* open.
But keeping things balanced is a very difficult thing.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:22:16AM +0100, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> True, but it happened several times in the projects I supervised or
> being part of, that committers seeked consensus privately exactly not to
> influence the person.
>
> Nicola, for example (I'm citing this because he knows so no harm is
> done), was proposed for commit access in a private multi-CCed email and
> turned down by me since I thought he needed more time to 'tune' to how
> things were working on the mail list.
>
> Note: publicly, I never had to turn down any committer and I think I
> voted in several tens of them.
>
> Anyway, he was proposed for commit access a few months later and voted
> in with no negative vote. He not only proved his skills, but the ability
> to learn from his mistakes.
>
> If voted down pubblicly the first time, I have the impression that he
> would have left, with big disadvantage of everyone, himself first.
>
> So, I think that proposing nominations in public does no harm if there
> reasonable estimation that nobody would be against it. But, in any other
> case, a private votation will serve the person nominated best.
>
> At least, that has been my experience.
The irony here is that by attempting to come to a pre-concensus the
vote and discussion turned inadvertently private, which by its mere
existance shows that the public system failed. I would much rather have
the situation we have now in the httpd or members lists where nominations
are made to everyone (and exclusively to everyone) would will have to
vote on that nomination.
-aaron
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Ted Husted wrote:
> 10/29/2002 5:16:57 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> >Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC
> >membership really should be private. I absolutely will not
> >participate in such an environment, and will encourage others
> >to avoid it also. These kinds of discussions really don't
> >enhance the community.
>
>
> It's worth mentioning that, right now, commit access to
> Jakarta subprojects is decided on the public DEV lists. So, the
> idea of doing so much on closed lists seems novel and strange
> to some of us.
True, but it happened several times in the projects I supervised or
being part of, that committers seeked consensus privately exactly not to
influence the person.
Nicola, for example (I'm citing this because he knows so no harm is
done), was proposed for commit access in a private multi-CCed email and
turned down by me since I thought he needed more time to 'tune' to how
things were working on the mail list.
Note: publicly, I never had to turn down any committer and I think I
voted in several tens of them.
Anyway, he was proposed for commit access a few months later and voted
in with no negative vote. He not only proved his skills, but the ability
to learn from his mistakes.
If voted down pubblicly the first time, I have the impression that he
would have left, with big disadvantage of everyone, himself first.
So, I think that proposing nominations in public does no harm if there
reasonable estimation that nobody would be against it. But, in any other
case, a private votation will serve the person nominated best.
At least, that has been my experience.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>.
10/29/2002 5:16:57 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org> wrote:
>Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC
>membership really should be private. I absolutely will not
>participate in such an environment, and will encourage others
>to avoid it also. These kinds of discussions really don't
>enhance the community.
It's worth mentioning that, right now, commit access to
Jakarta subprojects is decided on the public DEV lists. So, the
idea of doing so much on closed lists seems novel and strange
to some of us.
-Ted.
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 12:04:35PM -0800, Morgan Delagrange wrote:
> --- Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:mdelagra@yahoo.com]
> > > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:36
> >
> > >> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The problem with nominations in a forum that does
> > >> not perfectly match the voting body is that it makes it
> > >> difficult to hold discussions about the nominee in a fair way.
> > >> Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the members@apache.org.
I completely agree. Much in the same way that committer access and PMC
membership is voted on within the PMC confines.
> > > I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire away.
> > > I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see what
> > > goes into the evaluation process. If you're really
> > > concerned about keeping your opinion on me private,
> > > you can post it to members instead, but I assure you
> > > that I'm OK with criticism.
> > >
> > > In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and know
> > > why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
Actually, it has *very* little to do with how you feel, but what happens to
the entire community when something like this occurs.
> > It is not only for the nominee but also for the voting body.
> > When someone other than a fellow voter is looking at you
> > expectantly, people tend to act differently. [Try stuffing
> > a camera in someones face and see if you can spot behaviour
> > changes.]
> >
> > In a sense this is influencing the voting body, whether positive
> > or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate IMO.
Yup.
>...
> I'd stop short of saying that using a public forum is
> "inappropriate", but I think you've correctly
> identified some disadvantages.
Oh, Sander hasn't even come close :-)
The problem with discussing people in public is that it is *extremely*
divisive and polarizing to the community. No matter how well-intentioned it
may be, or how thick the recipient's skin is... such a discussion *creates*
factions within the community.
Let's say that I came out and said, "Morgan? Oh, I don't think so. The
postings that I've seen from him do not mesh well with the long-term ideals
of what the ASF is all about. He represents himself and his community in
Jakarta Commosn, but isn't concerned about the ASF except to give him more
protection for his corner of the world."
What would happen?
* you're okay with it. no problem.
* people who know you now take a couple actions
- they put themselves into the "pro-Morgan" camp and me in the
"anti-Morgan" camp.
- where I stated an opinion, they now turn it into a debate on your merits
and the list devolves into "but look at what Morgan has done" or "see
how he has contributed" while I was only trying to state an opinion on
what I had seen
* people who aren't familiar with the situation place themselves into the
"oh, whatever" camp and start dropping the debators into the other camps.
* people who agree with my position "align themselves" with my opinion,
again creating factions
- if they post a support email for me, then the other members of the
community place that support into the anti-Morgan camp
- and we're back to the spin/discussion on your merits/anti-merits
* BIG ITEM: my quote above was merely an example. but I *EDITED* the damned
thing. I didn't even realize it until I got to this part of my email. the
original hypothesis was that it would be posted in a public forum. my
original text was "Morgan? oh, fuck that. ..." but while writing that, I
thought, "oh. this is for a public forum, so I wouldn't have phrased it so
strongly. let me tone down the example." thus, my supposed, original
motivations against you have been toned down. the other readers are not
going to get the full brunt of my opinion because I had to tone it down
for a public forum.
and this is just an *example*... what if it were real?
* future opinions are now muddied. people in the pro-Morgan camp will always
take my words with an bad highlight over them. "oh, he doesn't like
Morgan. he has bad opinions." or when we have a technical debate, people
will question, "is this truly a technical debate, or is this based on his
original anti-morgan stance?"
> I'd offer two potential advantages in response: 1)
> members can pose questions directly to the candidate,
Always possible. A public forum is not necessary for this. As Pier stated in
another email, he spoke with Justin via IRC. Stuff like that and emails are
quite doable. The posting of a nomination and discussion about the pros/cons
of a person in public does not create any particular advantage for talking
with the nominee.
> and 2) other non-members get to see what goes into the
> selection process. I'd say the second is the more
> significant. We've already asserted that member
> selection is qualitative in nature and varies from
> case-to-case. By debating on a forum available to
> other committers, non-members can witness some of the
> selection criteria as they evolve.
Yes, for better or worse, it is a highly subjective process which means
there is really no way to extract useful rules.
But "debate" is an awful thing to get into when you're talking about a
person. It is the single-most and quickest way to create divisiveness,
factions, and polarization within a community.
Sorry, but nominations for membership, commit status, or PMC membership
really should be private. I absolutely will not participate in such an
environment, and will encourage others to avoid it also. These kinds of
discussions really don't enhance the community.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Morgan Delagrange <md...@yahoo.com>.
--- Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> wrote:
> > From: Morgan Delagrange
> [mailto:mdelagra@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:36
>
> >> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem with nominations in a forum that does
> >> not perfectly match the voting body is that it
> makes it
> >> difficult to hold discussions about the nominee
> in a fair way.
> >> Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the
> members@apache.org.
> >
> > I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire
> away.
> > I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see
> what
> > goes into the evaluation process. If you're
> really
> > concerned about keeping your opinion on me
> private,
> > you can post it to members instead, but I assure
> you
> > that I'm OK with criticism.
> >
> > In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and
> know
> > why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
>
> It is not only for the nominee but also for the
> voting body.
> When someone other than a fellow voter is looking at
> you
> expectantly, people tend to act differently. [Try
> stuffing
> a camera in someones face and see if you can spot
> behaviour
> changes.]
>
> In a sense this is influencing the voting body,
> whether positive
> or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate IMO.
>
>
> Sander 'who fears he has to wear his asbestos suite
> for a while
> longer' Striker
>
I'd stop short of saying that using a public forum is
"inappropriate", but I think you've correctly
identified some disadvantages.
I'd offer two potential advantages in response: 1)
members can pose questions directly to the candidate,
and 2) other non-members get to see what goes into the
selection process. I'd say the second is the more
significant. We've already asserted that member
selection is qualitative in nature and varies from
case-to-case. By debating on a forum available to
other committers, non-members can witness some of the
selection criteria as they evolve.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
http://axion.tigris.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Morgan Delagrange [mailto:mdelagra@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 28 October 2002 20:36
>> Aaron Bannert wrote:
>>
>> The problem with nominations in a forum that does
>> not perfectly match the voting body is that it makes it
>> difficult to hold discussions about the nominee in a fair way.
>> Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the members@apache.org.
>
> I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire away.
> I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see what
> goes into the evaluation process. If you're really
> concerned about keeping your opinion on me private,
> you can post it to members instead, but I assure you
> that I'm OK with criticism.
>
> In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and know
> why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
It is not only for the nominee but also for the voting body.
When someone other than a fellow voter is looking at you
expectantly, people tend to act differently. [Try stuffing
a camera in someones face and see if you can spot behaviour
changes.]
In a sense this is influencing the voting body, whether positive
or negative doesn't matter, it's inappropiate IMO.
Sander 'who fears he has to wear his asbestos suite for a while
longer' Striker
Re: ASF Membership Nomination: Ted Husted
Posted by Morgan Delagrange <md...@yahoo.com>.
--- Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
> Aaron Bannert wrote:
> >
> > The problem with nominations in a forum that does
> not perfectly
> > match the voting body is that it makes it
> difficult to hold
> > discussions about the nominee in a fair way.
> Nominations, IMNSHO,
> > belong on the members@apache.org.
>
> not to mention sparing the nominees' feelings if
> they *don't*
> get elected. (that has happened only once afaik,
> but nevertheless.)
>
> i know *i* would feel not-so-good if i was publicly
> nominated
> for something and then voted down.
I can't speak for Ted, but I don't mind, fire away.
I'm pretty thick-skinned, and I'm curious to see what
goes into the evaluation process. If you're really
concerned about keeping your opinion on me private,
you can post it to members instead, but I assure you
that I'm OK with criticism.
In fact, I'd rather be turned down in public and know
why then get turned down "in absentia". :)
- Morgan
> --
> #ken P-)}
>
> Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini
> http://Golux.Com/coar/
> Author, developer, opinionist
> http://Apache-Server.Com/
>
> "Millennium hand and shrimp!"
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> community-help@apache.org
>
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
http://axion.tigris.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/
Re: ASF Membership Nomination: Ted Husted
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> The problem with nominations in a forum that does not perfectly
> match the voting body is that it makes it difficult to hold
> discussions about the nominee in a fair way. Nominations, IMNSHO,
> belong on the members@apache.org.
not to mention sparing the nominees' feelings if they *don't*
get elected. (that has happened only once afaik, but nevertheless.)
i know *i* would feel not-so-good if i was publicly nominated
for something and then voted down.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> When successfully nominated, I think the 'promotion' of the
> committer to a member should be trumpeted on community. There's
> no need to know about the voting, and whether someone doesn't get
> in, but there is a need to know when someone gets in to help build
> community.
absolutely +1.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> > Sent: 28 October 2002 20:15
>
> > On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:05:28AM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > > I hereby nominate Ted Husted.
> >
> > The problem with nominations in a forum that does not perfectly match
> > the voting body is that it makes it difficult to hold discussions
> > about the nominee in a fair way. Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the
> > members@apache.org.
>
> I totally agree. There should be two parties informed: the nominee
> and the members. No more, no less.
Disagree and agree. I think your and Aaron's points are good, and that
your line above is nearly good.
When successfully nominated, I think the 'promotion' of the committer to a
member should be trumpeted on community. There's no need to know about the
voting, and whether someone doesn't get in, but there is a need to know
when someone gets in to help build community.
Hen
RE: ASF Membership Nomination
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Aaron Bannert [mailto:aaron@clove.org]
> Sent: 28 October 2002 20:15
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:05:28AM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> > I hereby nominate Ted Husted.
>
> The problem with nominations in a forum that does not perfectly match
> the voting body is that it makes it difficult to hold discussions
> about the nominee in a fair way. Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the
> members@apache.org.
I totally agree. There should be two parties informed: the nominee
and the members. No more, no less.
Sander
Re: ASF Membership Nomination: Ted Husted
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 11:05:28AM -0800, Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> I hereby nominate Ted Husted.
The problem with nominations in a forum that does not perfectly match
the voting body is that it makes it difficult to hold discussions
about the nominee in a fair way. Nominations, IMNSHO, belong on the
members@apache.org.
-aaron
Re: ASF Membership Nomination: Ted Husted
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> I hereby nominate Ted Husted.
>
> Ted has been a long term committer on Struts and Jakarta Commons, and his
> code contributions have been valuable. But, in addition to that, Ted has
> taken the lead at attempting to help us codify our policies and
> procedures, and helping us clarify what we mean by "the Apache way". This
> has been demonstrated during the development of Jakarta Commons, and is
> also clear in his frequent, positive, and constructive contributions to
> the ongoing discussions about the organization of Apache as a whole.
>
> Would any ASF member care to second this nomination?
I enthusiastically second this nomination!
> Craig McClanahan