Michi's guideline feedback (was Re: [VOTE] Lenya Project Guidelines)

[Michael Ralston <mi...@ralston.id.au>]

I think the current guidelines are a good starting point even though 
Michi has raised some valid points. Should the guidelines be published 
as is, or should Michi's issues be addressed prior to publishing any 
guidelines? I would opt for publishing them as is (hence my +1 vote), 
then gradually refine the guidelines over time.

> - I think the mission of Apache Lenya needs be more detailed, e.g.
> framework with out of the box samples, scalable, performant, backwards
> compatible, ... I think we really need to define our goals resp. link
> to a document which is defining the goals explicitely, otherwise I am
> afraid this whole thing is pointless.
I think the current mission statement is the most concise possible 
definition of what Lenya is. The mission statement addresses the two 
singly most important aspect of Lenya - open source content management - 
and separation of content and presentation.

This definition does not get bogged down in the details of how this is 
to be accomplished. I think maybe under that mission statement there 
could be a link to another page which explains how we go about 
accomplishing this goal. But as a simple concise definition of what 
Lenya's core mission is, I think the statement is perfect.

> Without being negative, but generally speaking I think people haven't 
> really
> read this document closely and hence just say +1. I hope I am wrong.
I've read the document closely. I don't understand some of the issues 
you have raised, probably as I'm not as active in the community as I 
would like to be. But my vote +1 is that I think these guidelines are 
appropriate and should be published as is. Once this occurs the 
community has committed to something and it is a starting point which 
can be revised.

> Nevertheless I still believe that we should start with a white sheet 
> of paper
> and vote on every "paragraph" and also attach a reasoning for each 
> paragraph.
I think this approach would lead to endless months of discussion without 
actually committing to anything. The proposed guidelines are quite 
large, yet you have only given 10 objections to them. Even if these are 
just the first 10 things you have had time to raise, should we discard 
the rest of the document and start from nothing? That sounds like a 
complete waste of time in my opinion.


If the project guidelines were a piece of software, would you delay 
releasing it completely until it was completely bug free and everybody 
agreed that it operated exactly the way they wanted? Or would you 
release the software, and then improve upon it with each new release? 
Maybe this is a silly question as Lenya hasn't had a new release for 
over a year... and maybe this is the heart of the problem with the Lenya 
community.

Michael R

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org

Re: Michi's guideline feedback (was Re: [VOTE] Lenya Project Guidelines)

[Thorsten Scherler <th...@apache.org>]

El mié, 12-07-2006 a las 09:03 +1000, Michael Ralston escribió:
> I think the current guidelines are a good starting point even though 
> Michi has raised some valid points. Should the guidelines be published 
> as is, or should Michi's issues be addressed prior to publishing any 
> guidelines? I would opt for publishing them as is (hence my +1 vote), 
> then gradually refine the guidelines over time.
> 

+1 

Thanks for pinning it down so clearly. 

salu2
-- 
thorsten

"Together we stand, divided we fall!" 
Hey you (Pink Floyd)


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org

Re: Michi's guideline feedback (was Re: [VOTE] Lenya Project Guidelines)

[Michael Wechner <mi...@wyona.com>]

Michael Ralston wrote

>
>> - I think the mission of Apache Lenya needs be more detailed, e.g.
>> framework with out of the box samples, scalable, performant, backwards
>> compatible, ... I think we really need to define our goals resp. link
>> to a document which is defining the goals explicitely, otherwise I am
>> afraid this whole thing is pointless.
>
> I think the current mission statement is the most concise possible 
> definition of what Lenya is. The mission statement addresses the two 
> singly most important aspect of Lenya - open source content management 
> - and separation of content and presentation.
>
> This definition does not get bogged down in the details of how this is 
> to be accomplished. I think maybe under that mission statement there 
> could be a link to another page which explains how we go about 
> accomplishing this goal.


that's what I suggested

> But as a simple concise definition of what Lenya's core mission is, I 
> think the statement is perfect.


why not remove "separation of content and presentation" as well then?

>
>> Without being negative, but generally speaking I think people haven't 
>> really
>> read this document closely and hence just say +1. I hope I am wrong.
>
> I've read the document closely. I don't understand some of the issues 
> you have raised,


which ones?

> I think this approach would lead to endless months of discussion 
> without actually committing to anything. The proposed guidelines are 
> quite large, yet you have only given 10 objections to them. Even if 
> these are just the first 10 things you have had time to raise, should 
> we discard the rest of the document and start from nothing?


yep

> That sounds like a complete waste of time in my opinion.


we do have time

>
>
> If the project guidelines were a piece of software, would you delay 
> releasing it completely until it was completely bug free and everybody 
> agreed that it operated exactly the way they wanted?


there will always be bugs, and also the guidelines will have bugs even 
if started from scratch and time will change things.

> Or would you release the software, and then improve upon it with each 
> new release? Maybe this is a silly question as Lenya hasn't had a new 
> release for over a year... and maybe this is the heart of the problem 
> with the Lenya community.


well, I don't think you can compare these two things, but yes, we should 
try to get out this release ...

Anyway, I am happy to accept the decision of the majority despite I have 
a different opinion.

Thanks

Michi

>
>
> Michael R
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org
>
>


-- 
Michael Wechner
Wyona      -   Open Source Content Management   -    Apache Lenya
http://www.wyona.com                      http://lenya.apache.org
michael.wechner@wyona.com                        michi@apache.org
+41 44 272 91 61


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org

Re: Michi's guideline feedback (was Re: [VOTE] Lenya Project Guidelines)

["Gregor J. Rothfuss" <gr...@apache.org>]

Michael Ralston wrote:

>> Nevertheless I still believe that we should start with a white sheet 
>> of paper
>> and vote on every "paragraph" and also attach a reasoning for each 
>> paragraph.
> I think this approach would lead to endless months of discussion without 
> actually committing to anything. The proposed guidelines are quite 
> large, yet you have only given 10 objections to them. Even if these are 
> just the first 10 things you have had time to raise, should we discard 
> the rest of the document and start from nothing? That sounds like a 
> complete waste of time in my opinion.

+1, fully agreed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lenya.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lenya.apache.org