You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tomcat.apache.org by Alex Fernández <af...@tid.es> on 2001/01/17 15:32:29 UTC
Forming an opinion
Hi all!
I've seen a lot of discussion here on Tomcat 3.3 vs 4.0. Without some
knowledge about the inside workings of each version, it's very hard to
follow it -- I mean, find out the actual issues behind the "politics" --
or the politics behind the actual issues.
The article linked by cmanolache, 'Internal Tomcat', is very good IMHO.
But then it's all words; there's nothing like studying the way it's
implemented.
So I was trying to at least take a look at the code and the way it's
organized. But the link to the 3.x nightly builds is broken, so no code
for 3.3. Do I need CVS to get it? (Don't get used to those weird
commands.)
And, by the way, has PMC made any important decision about Tomcat 3.3?
Thanks a lot,
Alex.
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Alex Fernández <af...@tid.es>.
Thanks, Costin.
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Amy Roh <am...@betaversion.org>.
I totally agree with Hans. I attended the meeting yesterday and would hate to
see this kind of misunderstanding. Costin, I really don't think that anyone is
after you personally. No one is saying that you're a bad person. I personally
think that the passon you have about what you do is very admirable. It's just
that the many people in the group are concerned about the main issues that were
discussed in the meeting. (support, bug fixes, etc.) And I think these concerns
are fair based on the history that I have been told at the meeting. I hope that
everyone's interest focuses on what's best for this project and how we can make
it better not just on their personal issues.
Warm Regards,
Amy
Quoting Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>:
> cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and
> votes
> > that a 3.3 release proposal can get.
>
> That's exactly right.
>
> > The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3
> > doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and
> > Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am.
> > [...]
> > P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that
> I'm a
> > bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by
> Craig
> > alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ).
>
> It saddens me to see this type of comment after the meeting. I'm only
> going to say this once and I will not get into a discussion about it
> again. *No one* has said anything about you being a bad person in these
> discussions, or that the code is bad, or anything like that. As was
> clear in the meeting yesterday, the whole issue is about the fact that
> major refactoring work has continued on the HEAD without a release
> plan and agreed upon goals, and a concern that releasing the result
> without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it
> can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about
> making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the
> committers in the project and in line with our guidelines.
>
> Hans
> --
> Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
> Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
> Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Remy,
Rest of your points re: Costin and your position on "3.3" well taken. But...
Remy Maucherat wrote:
> However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just
> *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping
> either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless
> discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than
> what you think Jon is).
Pray tell me, is it rocket science to see that Jon's communication style is
basically so confrontational and even harrassing and demeaning at times? You
jump up to say Paulo should "*stop* that" (what?) but are so silent when it
comes to all the shit Jon hurls on people from time to time.
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Thom May <th...@amxstudios.com>.
* Paulo Gaspar (paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de) wrote on Thu Jan 18, 2001 at 11:49:41 +0100:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@apache.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
> > > >
> > > > on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been
> > bad,
> > > > nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
> > > > starting to send yet more flame bait.
> > >
> > > And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
> > >
> > > Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
> > > about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
> > >
> > > What are you missing?
> >
> > However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just
> > *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping
> > either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless
> > discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than
> > what you think Jon is).
>
> It as nothing to do with Costin and all to do with Jon.
I think actually it has rather more to do with you, Paulo. While I am not,
am very unlikely to be, anything to do with the tomcat project - nothing against it,
just my java coding sucks, which is why I'm a sysadmin ;) - I'm beginning to get
_very_ fed up with your attitude. I can understand Costin's wish to release his
"baby" as the next version of tomcat 3.x. I can certainly understand Jon and
Craig's concerns as to supporting that baby, and wanting to move on with Tomcat-4.
However. I have not seen anything from you recently except flame bait. FUD and
self agrandisement.
On a quick count of the last year or so's emails to tomcat-dev, I can see about
10 "useful" emails from you. And many times that number of pointless flames
that (a) are mostly personal attacks (b) all say _exactly_ the same thing,
and (c) are mostly instances of wanting the last word.
>
> I only reply to what Jon says. I already explicitly said that and I clearly
> stated that I will stop when he stops.
>
> To be clear, I am fed up that Jon:
(does stuff, most of which you are also guilty of too)
>
> He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the
> clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering
> to him to see what happens.
Warped perception of reality? How does saying _exactly_ the same thing each
time count as replying? that's not debating, that's just a (pointless) attack.
I agree that Jon comes across fairly strongly, but he makes an attempt to
answer people honestly and accurately, which is all a reasonable person can want.
Can everyone _please_ try to take a step back and a deep breath? I note the cvs
commits are almost non-existant at the moment, and this is obviously not an
ideal situation for people like me who would like to be able to roll out a
Servlet 2.3 based environment.
Cheers,
Thom
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by Shawn McMurdo <sh...@lutris.com>.
Hi Jim,
Sorry, I must have missed that message amid the flamefest.
;-)
I think it's great that the Jakarta PMC is making these efforts to be more
open.
Thanks!
Shawn
Jim Driscoll wrote:
> Shawn McMurdo wrote:
> > A reservation system or even an informal "who's planning on dialing in"
> > query on the list before the meeting can give the community and the
> > organizers a good feel for whether there is room for casual observers
> > or whether more ports are needed.
>
> I performed an informal query on this list.
>
> >From the thunderous silence, I figured that there wouldn't really be
> more than a few people dialing in... and so reserved far more than I
> ever thought I'd need.
>
> Jim
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Shawn McMurdo mailto:shawn@lutris.com
Lutris Technologies http://www.lutris.com
Enhydra.Org http://www.enhydra.org
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by Jim Driscoll <ji...@eng.sun.com>.
Shawn McMurdo wrote:
> A reservation system or even an informal "who's planning on dialing in"
> query on the list before the meeting can give the community and the
> organizers a good feel for whether there is room for casual observers
> or whether more ports are needed.
I performed an informal query on this list.
RE: Meeting dialins
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50
>
> On 1/21/01 11:28 AM, "Shawn McMurdo" <sh...@lutris.com> wrote:
>
> > A reservation system or even an informal "who's planning on dialing in"
> > query on the list before the meeting can give the community and the
> > organizers a good feel for whether there is room for casual observers
> > or whether more ports are needed.
>
> We did request that info. :) I'm sorry that my wording of the message gave
> people the idea that they weren't welcome to call in.. I was
> unsure of what
> kind of response we'd get since we didn't have a very good
> feedback to Jim's
> mail -- and I also figured that if you really wanted to call in,
> you'd do so
> anyways. :)
>
> --
> James Duncan Davidson
Jon already gave a (IMHO) very good answer to how people that want to
dial in should prepare to such events:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 21:20
>
> on 1/21/01 11:28 AM, "Shawn McMurdo" <sh...@lutris.com> wrote:
>
> > A reservation system or even an informal "who's planning on dialing in"
> > query on the list before the meeting can give the community and the
> > organizers a good feel for whether there is room for casual observers
> > or whether more ports are needed.
>
> If you were really concerned and really wanted to listen, you could have
> helped coordinate making this happen instead of stating agreement with the
> obvious after the fact. <smile> :-)
Who is right is behind the point. We all are learning with this experience.
Next time everybody can do better.
Have fun,
Paulo
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/21/01 11:28 AM, "Shawn McMurdo" <sh...@lutris.com> wrote:
> A reservation system or even an informal "who's planning on dialing in"
> query on the list before the meeting can give the community and the
> organizers a good feel for whether there is room for casual observers
> or whether more ports are needed.
We did request that info. :) I'm sorry that my wording of the message gave
people the idea that they weren't welcome to call in.. I was unsure of what
kind of response we'd get since we didn't have a very good feedback to Jim's
mail -- and I also figured that if you really wanted to call in, you'd do so
anyways. :)
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by David Weinrich <dw...@home.com>.
I totally agree with your points on this issue. My apologies to the people
who arranged the dialin and meeting from those of us who were too
passive/lazy/whateverelse to actively participate in the meeting...
David
> If a ton of people had actually emailed the list stating that they were
> going to participate, I'm sure that we would have found a way to
accommodate
> as many people as we possibly could have.
>
> Even if you had dialed in and were told to leave because the room was full
> or getting full, that would have been more of an attempt to participate
than
> not dialing in at all.
>
> If you don't vote in Florida, a Republican will win.
>
> thanks,
>
> -jon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@optonline.net>.
Jon Stevens wrote:
>
> If you don't vote in Florida, a Republican will win.
It's not all that clear that voting makes any difference there...
:)
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. geirm@optonline.com
Velocity : it's not just a good idea. It should be the law.
http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/21/01 11:28 AM, "Shawn McMurdo" <sh...@lutris.com> wrote:
> David made a valid and I think helpful suggestion
> and it was dismissed with a complaint.
Not dismissed or a complaint.
The point being is that people seem to *expect* us to do everything for them
and that simply isn't going to happen. People need to start standing up for
themselves.
> From the announcement of the dialin I got the impression that
> the lines were limited and therefore casual observers should
> refrain from calling in so those lines could be used by active committers.
How are we (the PMC) supposed to know what your "impression" is if you don't
speak up?? Are we (the PMC) supposed to be mind readers now?
> A reservation system or even an informal "who's planning on dialing in"
> query on the list before the meeting can give the community and the
> organizers a good feel for whether there is room for casual observers
> or whether more ports are needed.
If you were really concerned and really wanted to listen, you could have
helped coordinate making this happen instead of stating agreement with the
obvious after the fact. <smile> :-)
If a ton of people had actually emailed the list stating that they were
going to participate, I'm sure that we would have found a way to accommodate
as many people as we possibly could have.
Even if you had dialed in and were told to leave because the room was full
or getting full, that would have been more of an attempt to participate than
not dialing in at all.
If you don't vote in Florida, a Republican will win.
thanks,
-jon
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by Shawn McMurdo <sh...@lutris.com>.
David made a valid and I think helpful suggestion
and it was dismissed with a complaint.
RE: Meeting dialins
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
I suppose that people that do not bitch and complain are welcome too.
=;o)
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001 07:11
>
> ...
>
> There were 3 people who dialed in and 20 dialin ports. I don't
> think we need
> to reserve spots, instead, we need people who are willing to bitch and
> complain on the mailing lists to actually participate in the meetings that
> matter.
>
> -jon
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/20/01 9:56 PM, "David Weinrich" <dw...@home.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if it might be possible to have people reserve spots for
> the dialin, with committers having priority of course. For some reason I had
> assumed that the lines would be pretty much tied up ( bad assumption I
> know ). If anything this could give the person handling the details for the
> dialin from the other end an idea of demand/lack of demand.
> As an alternate idea, a webcast of even just the audio would work fine for
> me as well...but that is probably a bigger PITA than having the dialin.
>
> thanks again,
>
> David Weinrich
There were 3 people who dialed in and 20 dialin ports. I don't think we need
to reserve spots, instead, we need people who are willing to bitch and
complain on the mailing lists to actually participate in the meetings that
matter.
-jon
Re: Meeting dialins
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/20/01 9:56 PM, "David Weinrich" <dw...@home.com> wrote:
> I am wondering if it might be possible to have people reserve spots for
> the dialin, with committers having priority of course. For some reason I had
> assumed that the lines would be pretty much tied up ( bad assumption I
> know ).
With most conference systems its hard to reserve slots. The limit on numbers
is who you share the passcode with.
Jim did asked for a count ahead of time to help plan -- we actually reserved
20 ports. Of which 3 were used. If we had hit max ports during the call, we
would have gotten in touch with the operator and increased appropriately.
> As an alternate idea, a webcast of even just the audio would work fine for
> me as well...but that is probably a bigger PITA than having the dialin.
Anybody who volunteers to set up a webcast for the next meeting is welcome
to do so.. :) Or whatever else. I personally can make sure that
teleconferences happen. That's about it. For other kinds of collaborative
efforts, others are going to have to step forward.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Meeting dialins
Posted by David Weinrich <dw...@home.com>.
I am wondering if it might be possible to have people reserve spots for
the dialin, with committers having priority of course. For some reason I had
assumed that the lines would be pretty much tied up ( bad assumption I
know ). If anything this could give the person handling the details for the
dialin from the other end an idea of demand/lack of demand.
As an alternate idea, a webcast of even just the audio would work fine for
me as well...but that is probably a bigger PITA than having the dialin.
thanks again,
David Weinrich
> As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as
> well used as they could have been. Real money was spent in order to set up
> that conference call and it doesn't bode well that it was barely used. I
> understand it wasn't perfect and in the future we need to entertain ideas
of
> how to do this better. But, we can't perform *all* communication via email
> -- and knowing people face to face *so* improves communication. We'll have
> to work on this... However, if you feel that strongly, you could have
asked
> about us dialing you or any number of alternatives... Nobody asked about
> this during the set up so I assumed that the call-in setup was going to be
> good.
>
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>
> > That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_.
>
> I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion
> about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should
> bring up at the PMC." Do you see how I'm put on the offensive?
>
> Early on, I tried to be civil. It didn't work. I needed to bring the
> discussion up a level to get people to notice.
Well, okay. If you say you are trying to be civil (instead of attacking people)
I'm grateful for that and willing to trust you.
Let me reiterate that I'm not trying to be offensive. Just merely telling
(correction: requesting) you not to be offensive. If you continue to be
offensive, I have no choice but to be offensive myself. This is my conditioned
response as I see no reason to excuse
> Costin (and others) were doing whatever the fuck they wanted to do
> regardless of what everyone voted on. It was starting to disrupt the ability
> of this project to get work done as well as focus on the future.
How many times has this been repeated?! NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH YOU BRINGING
THIS TO HEAD.
> As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
>
> "Whether or not you agree with the way he puts things or whether or not he's
> "nice" enough, you have to admit that he took the initiative to kick this
> project in the ass and make sure that its goals and future were clearly
> defined when he decided that they weren't. If that involves pissing some
> people off or hurting some feelings along the way, then so be it. As far as
> I can tell, every good project should have someone like him. The last thing
> we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
> someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to
> me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you
> should keep them to yourself and not participate here."
I've been long enough around here (seen lots of other people too) and have been
affected by your behavior (in more ways than one) that I can't talk like Kurt
does.
> Anil, get over it and move on. The rest of us have.
The rest of you have?? Really? Who started this again? It was James, in case you
missed it.
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Geoff Soutter <ge...@whitewolf.com.au>.
"Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>
> Geoff Soutter wrote:
>
> > JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to
see
> > people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can
provide a
> > kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting
offended
> > without seeming very autocratic.
>
> I share your sentiments on this. I feel weird continuing this crap too but
I'm
> at my wits end trying to put an end to this sort of stuff.
Exactly. There's seems to be a _lot_ of complaining about this topic and
very few constructive ideas on how we can improve matters.
> > Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
> > muzzling them?
>
> Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
I was using "opinionated" as shorthand for behaviour that borders on
personal abuse.
geoff
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Filip Hanik <fi...@filip.net>.
with all my respect and the truth from my heart, in case you didn't read the
"Newbie" email,
I would recommend trying to focus on the dev issues, and maybe create
another list for the guidelines and standards and meetings.
-----------8<--------------------------------------------------
To all on the Tomcat Developer mailing list,
I recently joined this list to both gain knowledge about Tomcat which I
have been working with of late and to also hopefully contribute some of my
ideas for improvements to the Tomcat project. Since joining the list on
Friday I have received probably seventy-five emails, easily two thirds of
which were devoted to difficulties in group dynamics. As a new subscriber
to the group and user and developer of Tomcat I find this a rather
discouraging way to start my involvement in the project. I have know idea
what the exact nature of the exchange(s) that started all this was but I
would humbly suggest that all members of a development group like this
should be treated as coworkers. Different people will know a lot or a
little about various parts of the project depending of their level of
interest, ability, and experience. Regardless of your opinion of someone's
ability or the role that they play and for the sake of everyone involved in
the project, particularly in this environment where all exchanges are shared
with the entire group, it is of the utmost importance to treat one another
professionally. You may disagree passionately with someone's ideas and
opinions and you may even have personal reservations about that individual,
but under no circumstances should someone be personally attacked. Differing
opinions about ideas and development can be discussed vigorously and many
times no agreement will be reached but this should be an exchange of well
considered and supported arguments about software architecture, not
developers themselves. In addition I would suggest that when disagreeing
with someone on a development issue that respect be given to their ideas no
matter how wrong you think they are and the time be taken to understand
their reasoning and to help them understand yours. Calling someone's ideas
stupid is a bad idea no matter how incorrect and impractical they may really
be. Such attitudes stifle participation in any project and particularly one
where everyone is here out of personal interest. For the sake of the group
imagine your self in the other person's shoes and how you would treat them
at work if you sat in the cube next to them. Lastly, though I hope it
wouldn't be necessary, I would encourage the PMC to draw up a document or
amend an existing document to include a short statement of expected
behavioral standards. Let's please try and move past these exchanges and
get back to working on the project at hand. If you've made it this far
through my rant, thank you and I look forward to working with and learning
from you all and hopefully contributing to the project.
Best Regards,
James Courtney (Jamey)
--------------------------------------------8<------------------------------
--------------
Filip
~
Namaste - I bow to the divine in you.
~
Filip Hanik
Technical Architect
filip@filip.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Stevens" <jo...@latchkey.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to
stop.
How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the
fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on?
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Jon Stevens wrote:
> on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>
> > Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
>
> Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to
> stop.
I changed my mind.
> How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the
> fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on?
Nah. You won that shit throwing match.
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 01:35
>
> ...
>
> How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does
> whatever the
> fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on?
>
> -jon
>
Jon, get over it and move on. The rest of us have.
thanks,
Paulo
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/22/01 4:33 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
Are you still discussing this issue? I thought you said you were going to
stop.
How about discussing what to do when a developer goes and does whatever the
fuck he wants to do regardless of what everyone else voted and agreed on?
-jon
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Geoff Soutter wrote:
> JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see
> people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a
> kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended
> without seeming very autocratic.
I share your sentiments on this. I feel weird continuing this crap too but I'm
at my wits end trying to put an end to this sort of stuff.
> Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
> muzzling them?
Its not that someone is opiniated that bothers me, its how it is conveyed.
For example I have no problems if someone says that the way class reloading is
implemented in Tomcat 13.42 sucks and why it is bad but not something like: "you
obviously are clueless about classloaders, you haven't looked at jserv. sigh!
why don't you just pull the code from there?!" Or for that matter, "you claim
you are a PhD but you haven't done any research on template engines." I'm
paraphrasing here but you get the idea...
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
So, it seems that you have nothing against self defense. Right?
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 19:23
>
> On 1/22/01 4:16 PM, "Geoff Soutter" <ge...@whitewolf.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we
> protect the
> > people that get offended? :-)
>
> Those who need to be protected shouldn't walk outside their front door.
>
> --
> James Duncan Davidson
> duncan@x180.net
>
> !try; do()
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/22/01 4:16 PM, "Geoff Soutter" <ge...@whitewolf.com.au> wrote:
> Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we protect the
> people that get offended? :-)
Those who need to be protected shouldn't walk outside their front door.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Win2K + Apache + JServ + Tomcat
Posted by Charles Chen <ch...@charliechen.com>.
Anybody knows a working combination of Win2K + Apache + Jserv + tomcat?
I installed apache 1.3.12 + tomcat 3.2.1 + jserv (come with tomcat 3.2.1) on
win2K but as soon as the jserv was added into the httpd.conf and the the dll
was copied into the right place, the apache refused to start up.
>From the web site information I have searched, it seemt to me that only
certain old versions of apache + jserv + tomcat could work together. No
information could be found about Win2K installation. Any hint + reference +
pointer would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in anticipation.
Charles
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Geoff Soutter <ge...@whitewolf.com.au>.
"Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> At 11:08 23/1/01 +1100, Geoff Soutter wrote:
> >Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
> >muzzling them?
>
> don't bother responding to them unless they do things the right way. email
> them OFF list stating this in a very diplomatic way. Watch them explode
and
> then hopefully post-explosion they will be more willing to work with you
;)
> Cheers,
Yeah, sounds reasonable. Maybe I ought to be asking how do we protect the
people that get offended? :-)
geoff
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 11:08 23/1/01 +1100, Geoff Soutter wrote:
>Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
>muzzling them?
don't bother responding to them unless they do things the right way. email
them OFF list stating this in a very diplomatic way. Watch them explode and
then hopefully post-explosion they will be more willing to work with you ;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Courtney <ja...@yahoo.com>.
I hardly think that we all need to have that warm fuzzy feeling all the time
towards one another or that our ego's need to be shielded from having our
ideas challenged but clearly minimum standards of behavior between group
members should be agreed upon and observed for the health of the project.
There is, however, a very clear line between being an opinionated person and
someone who voices their opinions in a way that is offensive or attackes
other people thus discouraging participation in the project.
-Jamey
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Soutter [mailto:geoff@whitewolf.com.au]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 4:08 PM
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
"Scott Stirling" <ss...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
>
> > "The last thing
> > we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
> > someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It
seems to
> > me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you
> > should keep them to yourself and not participate here."
>
> <sarcasm>
> Sounds great, maybe that should go right on the main "getinvolved.html"
> page.
> </sarcasm>
JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see
people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a
kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended
without seeming very autocratic.
Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
muzzling them?
geoff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Geoff Soutter <ge...@whitewolf.com.au>.
"Scott Stirling" <ss...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
>
> > "The last thing
> > we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
> > someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It
seems to
> > me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you
> > should keep them to yourself and not participate here."
>
> <sarcasm>
> Sounds great, maybe that should go right on the main "getinvolved.html"
> page.
> </sarcasm>
JDD said essentially the same thing, it's weird, on one hand I hate to see
people getting upset but on the other hand I can't see how we can provide a
kind of "virtual padded room" where we can prevent people getting offended
without seeming very autocratic.
Any ideas how we can effectively deal with opinionated people without
muzzling them?
geoff
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Scott Stirling <ss...@mediaone.net>.
> As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
> "The last thing
> we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
> someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to
> me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you
> should keep them to yourself and not participate here."
<sarcasm>
Sounds great, maybe that should go right on the main "getinvolved.html"
page.
</sarcasm>
--
Scott Stirling
West Newton, MA
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/22/01 1:55 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_.
I didn't bring it up earlier cause you weren't carrying on this discussion
about trying to censor me...nor was it something that "I can/should
bring up at the PMC." Do you see how I'm put on the offensive?
Early on, I tried to be civil. It didn't work. I needed to bring the
discussion up a level to get people to notice.
Costin (and others) were doing whatever the fuck they wanted to do
regardless of what everyone voted on. It was starting to disrupt the ability
of this project to get work done as well as focus on the future.
As Kurt Schrader smartly said:
"Whether or not you agree with the way he puts things or whether or not he's
"nice" enough, you have to admit that he took the initiative to kick this
project in the ass and make sure that its goals and future were clearly
defined when he decided that they weren't. If that involves pissing some
people off or hurting some feelings along the way, then so be it. As far as
I can tell, every good project should have someone like him. The last thing
we need is the idea police here to make sure that no one is offended by
someone's postings not being up to their standards of niceness. It seems to
me that if you can't handle having your ideas being called shit then you
should keep them to yourself and not participate here."
Anil, get over it and move on. The rest of us have.
thanks,
-jon
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
First of, let me apologize for not showing up. IMO, it was an unfortunate thing
that happened and I had to drop my car off (in the morning) and then get it back
as well on the same day (before they close at 5). Regarding most of the actual
issues that got discussed, I was very happy with the kinds of "decisions" that
we reached (during and after my telephonic presence). I'm NOT bringing them up
here. The thing I'm bringing up here is something I'm not sure I can/should
bring up at the PMC.
That said, I don't understand why you bring this up _now_. Are you looking for
something or the other to blame me about? I don't even have an issue with this
-- I accept I messed up by not showing up. This is precisely the thing that
pisses me off -- why are you poking into the reasons why I couldn't show up?
They are personal and it is tough during these times for me to not have a car.
If you really need to know, I can tell you offline how I had to prioritize and
decide against driving down.
If you are tired, filter your mails and don't see any of these threads on you.
I'm tired too, of you kicking, screaming and insulting people.
Jon Stevens wrote:
> Hey Anil,
>
> I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC
> meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were
> there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your
> opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after the
> fact.
>
> As a member of the PMC, you should have been there. Everyone else was and I
> don't think that attending the meeting was an optional thing. In fact, you
> attempted to dial in and then sent me email after having dropped off stating
> that you couldn't hear what people were saying...why didn't you just say
> something? We could have moved the mike closer to people as necessary. We
> didn't know.
>
> I'm tired of people who can't even bother to participate at the most
> important meeting attempting to censor or control me. That is bullshit.
>
> thanks,
>
> -jon
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Hey Jon,
You attacked Anil's position, but you did not proof him wrong.
What are you attacking? The ideas or the man?
Your ideas often make sense. Often better than opposite ideas.
IMO, what Anil, me and others dislike is that, instead of attacking
the opposite ideas, you attack the people that defend them, one by
one if necessary.
That is why me and others understand faster other people that are
defending just the same you do.
What about starting to attack the opposite ideas instead of the men
behind them? For sure it would be more efficient.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 22:08
>
> Hey Anil,
>
> I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC
> meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were
> there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your
> opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after the
> fact.
>
> As a member of the PMC, you should have been there. Everyone else
> was and I
> don't think that attending the meeting was an optional thing. In fact, you
> attempted to dial in and then sent me email after having dropped
> off stating
> that you couldn't hear what people were saying...why didn't you just say
> something? We could have moved the mike closer to people as necessary. We
> didn't know.
>
> I'm tired of people who can't even bother to participate at the most
> important meeting attempting to censor or control me. That is bullshit.
>
> thanks,
>
> -jon
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
Hey Anil,
I know your car was broken, but you could have gotten a ride to the PMC
meeting from one or more of the *many* people that you work with who were
there (James, Pier, Amy, Jim, Costin, Justyi, Craig) and voiced your
opinions directly instead of attempting to bring them up here after the
fact.
As a member of the PMC, you should have been there. Everyone else was and I
don't think that attending the meeting was an optional thing. In fact, you
attempted to dial in and then sent me email after having dropped off stating
that you couldn't hear what people were saying...why didn't you just say
something? We could have moved the mike closer to people as necessary. We
didn't know.
I'm tired of people who can't even bother to participate at the most
important meeting attempting to censor or control me. That is bullshit.
thanks,
-jon
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him
> personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the PMC's charter
> expanded, that's something that can be discussed.
Not that I'm revealing any big secret here but yes I do have a beef with Jon's
behavior. From the begining he's been so instrumental in making me lose my
interest in this project. I know I'm not the only one.
This is such a weird case... no one else on the PMC or in this mailing list or
anywhere else goes around saying the sorts of things Jon does. To reiterate I
agree with the points Jon is trying to make, I like his attitude towards this and
other projects but I can't stand and take personal insults from Jon either to me
or other people.
I don't know if the PMC's charter can be expanded to cover these sorts of
behavioral issues. One would imagine that he would realize what exactly the issue
is and fix it (its so easy anyway) but given that hasn't happened the least that
you could do is look at exactly what people are trying to say and try to address
that (in whatever way you feel right) instead of belaboring the fact that Jon is
prolific and a great contributor.
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Kurt Schrader <ks...@engin.umich.edu>.
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> After all, it seemed clear to me that the PMC's role was too narrowly
> defined to include "niceness overseers".
As a college student who's just getting involved with Apache after working
on some other projects over the years, I think it's refreshing to see
people like Jon. As far as I'm concerned, the worst thing that can happen
on a project is for people to be muzzled or kicked out of the project for
saying what they think. If Jon hadn't written his initial e-mail, where
would we be right now? As far as I can tell we'd still be coding along
aimlessly until this came to a head at a later date, in a bigger way, with
two comparable 2.3 sevlet engines and much more user confusion.
I'm sure that if everyone in the community had disagreed with Jon's
initial post and told him to fuck off he would have either came to agree
or left the project. What happened, though, is that it showed
how the community was polarized, cleared up everyone's plans for the
future, and gave us a roadmap where there wasn't one before.
Whether or not you agree with the way he puts things or whether or not
he's "nice" enough, you have to admit that he took the initiative to kick
this project in the ass and make sure that its goals and future were
clearly defined when he decided that they weren't. If that involves
pissing some people off or hurting some feelings along the way, then so be
it. As far as I can tell, every good project should have someone like
him. The last thing we need is the idea police here to make sure that
no one is offended by someone's postings not being up to their standards
of niceness. It seems to me that if you can't handle having your ideas
being called shit then you should keep them to yourself and not
participate here.
-----------------
Kurt Schrader
kschrade@engin.umich.edu
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him
> personally, is the appropriate thing to do.
That is just what we did. IMHO, no one was asking for "official action".
We made remarks about that issue of other veterans reprehending me and
not Jon or both. But even this level of reprehension does not look that
"official" to me either.
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50
>
> On 1/20/01 11:56 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's
> contributions to ASF
> > or to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's
> great. But many
> > posts from Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small
> bit of toning
> > down would go > a long way.
>
> I should have been more clear -- legally defined harassment.
> Threats to body
> or property come to mind. Stalking. Not being a lawyer I don't know what
> else the ASF could be considered to be liable for (and of course
> it depends
> on what a jury thinks), however in my opinion it has to be this
> serious for
> official action to be taken. After all, it seemed clear to me
> that the PMC's
> role was too narrowly defined to include "niceness overseers".
>
> If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him
> personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the
> PMC's charter
> expanded, that's something that can be discussed.
>
> --
> James Duncan Davidson
> duncan@x180.net
>
> !try; do()
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/20/01 11:56 PM, "Anil Vijendran" <An...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's contributions to ASF
> or to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's great. But many
> posts from Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small bit of toning
> down would go > a long way.
I should have been more clear -- legally defined harassment. Threats to body
or property come to mind. Stalking. Not being a lawyer I don't know what
else the ASF could be considered to be liable for (and of course it depends
on what a jury thinks), however in my opinion it has to be this serious for
official action to be taken. After all, it seemed clear to me that the PMC's
role was too narrowly defined to include "niceness overseers".
If you have a beef with Jon's behavior, then voicing it here, or to him
personally, is the appropriate thing to do. Or if you want the PMC's charter
expanded, that's something that can be discussed.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
James Duncan Davidson wrote:
> Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of
> the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is built on trust
> more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source projects than
> I can keep track of.
> I won't ask Jon to stop aring just like I won't ask Costin or Craig. It
> may more may not be constructive, but email is the mechanism that we have
> and flames are par for course. The point at which to ask people to stop is
> when posts cross the line and become "harassment".
Agreed, James. I don't really see anyone question Jon's contributions to ASF or
to open source, in general. Jon is prolific and that's great. But many posts from
Jon "cross the line" and are harrassment. A small bit of toning down would go a
long way.
> > It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set
> > the example) to stop, you are asking me.
>
> So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've
> been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. That of course
> is utter bs. If you're on the PMC, it's because you are supposed to *have*
> an opinion.
Aw jeez. That's not the point :-) Many other PMC members have opinions and
express it and no one has any problems with that. It is the acrimonious tone
(many times with almost no provocation) that is hard to put up with.
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 19:39
>
> on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is
> perfect and that
> > the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins,
> I think that
> > he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and
> others) for
> > not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we
> did not do it.
>
> ...
> Your insistence that no one should know your personal business is bullshit
> in a public forum where you are speaking your mind freely. If I wasn't
able
> to make the meeting I would have stood up and told everyone why in clear
> details. I guess I expect the same level of professionalism from others
> concerning events as important as a PMC meeting that is a result of heated
> mailing list discussions. Maybe that is wrong.
> ...
I think that principle is right. What is (IMO) wrong is to be judge and
condemn people for not dialing in even before you know why.
> > I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often
> > does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did).
> >
> > * However, some people reprehended me and not him.
> > (And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.)
>
> There is a simple reason that comes from a very old saying:
>
> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> If I'm wrong, then trying to show me that I'm wrong by also being wrong
> doesn't make you look right.
>
> I'm not saying that what I was doing was wrong, but I am saying
> that it was
> wrong of you to try to show me that I was wrong by being wrong.
> That is why
> other people were flaming you more than me. :-)
> :-)
hehehe
You could be right about that being the reason! It is another way
of considering the issue that makes some sense.
=:o)
> -jon
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/22/01 2:55 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that
> the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that
> he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for
> not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we did not do it.
It doesn't matter why you didn't do it. It only matters that you didn't do
it and didn't state why you didn't do it.
Your insistence that no one should know your personal business is bullshit
in a public forum where you are speaking your mind freely. If I wasn't able
to make the meeting I would have stood up and told everyone why in clear
details. I guess I expect the same level of professionalism from others
concerning events as important as a PMC meeting that is a result of heated
mailing list discussions. Maybe that is wrong.
Note: I made every effort to get to that meeting, including getting to the
office space 2 hours early in case there was traffic or something else that
might have stopped me.
It is all about *showing* that you are making an effort. If you don't show
you make an effort, then the rest of what you say really ends up not
carrying much weight.
> I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often
> does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did).
>
> * However, some people reprehended me and not him.
> (And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.)
There is a simple reason that comes from a very old saying:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
If I'm wrong, then trying to show me that I'm wrong by also being wrong
doesn't make you look right.
I'm not saying that what I was doing was wrong, but I am saying that it was
wrong of you to try to show me that I was wrong by being wrong. That is why
other people were flaming you more than me. :-)
:-)
-jon
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 06:50
>
> On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :)
We all are and that was never the question.
> ...
>
> However, I personally think it would be a shame to muzzle somebody
> for anything less than harassment that is probably legally
> prosecutable. If
> somebody threatens personal harm, then that's definitely over the line. So
> far though, we've been lucky enough to not see "I'm going to drive right
> over to your house and kick your ass" being stated on the mailing lists.
Then we have different opinions.
I think harassment and other behaviors can be too destructive for a
mailing list like this, way before you have to call the police. You _seem_
to think that while one as not to call the police everything is ok.
Obviously, no one ever talked about calling the police here. Fortunately, we
were always far from that.
> ... [a lot of stuff on the dial ins] ...
You are missing/going around the point.
Jon is fundamentally right about the dial in issue and after working to have
them available it is just natural he is disappointed with the level of
participation. Jon also made quite clear that the fears that there were not
enough lines were not excuse because, if people were interested, they should
try to make lists of intended participants and so on.
One message that Jon passes trough quite well is that people should take
initiative instead of complaining and I think he is fundamentally right.
Now, by fundamentally right I mean that the basic idea is perfect and that
the implementation is somewhat shity. In the case of dial ins, I think that
he should not reprehend specific people (as he did with me and others) for
not trying to dial in when he does not know shit about why we did not do it.
And I do _not_ intend to justify myself because it just isn't this list
business.
> > I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the
> core Apache
> > team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a
> strong one.
> >
> > However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example.
>
> s/must/should/ -- there's no onus enforced to make people in an
> open source
> project hold themselves and their behavior up to some sort of
> standard other
> than the fact that if people don't like that person or group of
> people, they
> can always fork away or do something else with their life. We do
> have a set
> of rules that admittedly needing some work. Right now, those
> rules don't say
> anything about "Rules of Conduct". Until they do, there is no
> "must" there.
IMHO, you are missing the point again.
I just replied non stop and point by point to Jon's postings as he often
does (without even getting, IMHO, as personal as he sometimes did).
* However, some people reprehended me and not him.
(And notice that I was doing this only with Jon.)
So, the point is:
* If some veterans wanted to stop this, they should have started by
reprehending Jon or both.
(That has to do to what I was calling "ruling by example".)
Besides, since there are no limitations to opinions in this list, I think
some of us are free to defend a minimum "standard" without having to fork
away, just as you are free to defend what you are defending.
> > Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop
> because I was
> > replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was
> replying to
> > me (as you wrote, it takes two!).
> >
> > So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got
> reprehended
> > that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent.
>
> Actually, I don't think I reprehended either of you. All I did was defend
> him a bit. And if he had stated that he thought that you were out of line
> with your postings, I probably would have flamed him a bit for that... As
> far as other people reprehending you, well, that's their business.
What I wrote does not have to do with your attitudes but with the questions
you raise.
Besides, Jon does not have to be defended from me. Not only because Jon is
a productive veteran and I am a no one here (although a noisy one). Also
because I respect his work and I already did learn a lot from him. I also
do not have a problem agreeing with (and sometimes supporting) many of the
things he proposes.
Besides, I can see that currently there is no flame war going on with Jon
on this list and he is doing very constructive work.
To use an euphemism, let's say we just had a (big) problem about
participation style.
> > I wanted to see how far this could go.
>
> I get the feeling that we have people "playing chess" with this sort of
> thing. I'm not happy about that feeling.
It was too primary to be called "playing chess". It was a reaction, almost
a reflex.
And it did happen because I was not happy about some of my feelings too.
Have fun,
Paulo
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I
> will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything.
Yep. I chose to. Of course because of that it'll all be my fault. :) Of
course, I'm on a variable time delay right now given that I'm traveling so
I'm not seeing everything "real time".
> Everything I am writing here was already told before in previous postings.
> Maybe you had no patience to read all the stuff behind - and I can
> understand that.
Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :)
> Jon often is right and I never denied that. The problem only had to do with
> the frequent lack of a minimum of respect and politeness.
Funny that Jon created jserv.apache.org as a haven for Java development that
was to be the "nicer, gentler Apache". The flamewars seen on the Apache
mailing list are legendary. Is this a great thing to brag about? No. Not
really. However, I personally think it would be a shame to muzzle somebody
for anything less than harassment that is probably legally prosecutable. If
somebody threatens personal harm, then that's definitely over the line. So
far though, we've been lucky enough to not see "I'm going to drive right
over to your house and kick your ass" being stated on the mailing lists.
>> As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as
>> well used as they could have been.
>
> Understandable.
>
> But you are not telling me and others how I should have used the connection
> and how I am a bad boy for not doing it and so on.
>
> That was the issue. Jon know nothing about the lives and problems of several
> people that he flamed because of not dialing in.
We talked about using dial ins from about the day that we announced the
meeting. I didn't hear *anything* about the possibility that they wouldn't
work for some people. We *did* make sure that the number given would work
overseas as we have had a problem with some 800 conference numbers being
blocked from international access. This of course raised costs for people in
the US.
I'm pretty sure that if somebody had mailed us and said -- hey, can you guys
do a callback or something, that we would have at least tried to help out.
It would have been investigated and if it cost anything approaching
reasonable (defined as reasonable to the companies that kicked out bucks to
make this meeting happen) then it would have happened.
Or, if somebody had stepped forward and said "Hey, I'm bringing my laptop
and a microphone to do real time shoutcasting of the meeting", I would have
said "Cool, let's coordinate with Collab to make sure that network is
provided". Maybe somebody wants to step up and do that in the future?
At some point though, everyone here bears some of the costs of
participating. It is true that nothing is free. You spend money for the
computer hardware that you use to access the net. You spend money to connect
to the net. And some even spend money on the software/operating system to
access the net with. There are very real costs involved in collaborative
development that are shared by all, though some bear a bigger brunt than
others. I don't even want to think of the money that Brian and Collab and
others pay to provide bandwidth and sysadmin duties to the ASF (not to
mention hardware which in comparison is a minimal cost). And if we started
adding up the time value that people put in, a big number would pop out.
My point is, there's no such thing as a free lunch here. If you want to help
out or suggest ways that we can help you, then do so.
> I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the core Apache
> team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a strong one.
>
> However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example.
s/must/should/ -- there's no onus enforced to make people in an open source
project hold themselves and their behavior up to some sort of standard other
than the fact that if people don't like that person or group of people, they
can always fork away or do something else with their life. We do have a set
of rules that admittedly needing some work. Right now, those rules don't say
anything about "Rules of Conduct". Until they do, there is no "must" there.
> Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop because I was
> replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was replying to
> me (as you wrote, it takes two!).
>
> So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got reprehended
> that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent.
Actually, I don't think I reprehended either of you. All I did was defend
him a bit. And if he had stated that he thought that you were out of line
with your postings, I probably would have flamed him a bit for that... As
far as other people reprehending you, well, that's their business.
> I wanted to see how far this could go.
I get the feeling that we have people "playing chess" with this sort of
thing. I'm not happy about that feeling.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
I would rather let waters stay still. I am behaving and so is Jon.
However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I
will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything.
Everything I am writing here was already told before in previous postings.
Maybe you had no patience to read all the stuff behind - and I can
understand that.
My reply follows:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]
> Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2001 22:14
>
> On 1/18/01 2:49 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> Jon isn't the most polite of people sometimes, but he does have valid
> concerns wrt stability and following the rules that we have at the ASF. If
> you disagree with what somebody says, it is easy to just say that they
> aren't making sense. It takes two to fight, and you are doing
> more than your share.
Jon often is right and I never denied that. The problem only had to do with
the frequent lack of a minimum of respect and politeness.
Also, IMHO, he crossed the line of harassment with Costin and was at least
around that border with me. But after I did what I did, I don't complain any
more.
> As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as
> well used as they could have been.
Understandable.
But you are not telling me and others how I should have used the connection
and how I am a bad boy for not doing it and so on.
That was the issue. Jon know nothing about the lives and problems of several
people that he flamed because of not dialing in.
> ...
> > He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is
> part of the
> > clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just
> kept answering
> > to him to see what happens.
>
> Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of
> the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is
> built on trust
> more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source
> projects than
> I can keep track of.
I respect Jon's many merits. Just have a problem with these specific issues.
I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the core Apache
team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a strong one.
However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example.
It gets specially bad when, repeated times, I get reprehended by members of
that clique by _imitating_ Jon's attitude while he doesn't.
(Some people did criticize Jon or both of us too. I also noticed that.)
> I won't ask Jon to stop arguing just like I won't ask Costin or Craig. It
> may more may not be constructive, but email is the mechanism that we have
> and flames are par for course. The point at which to ask people to stop is
> when posts cross the line and become "harassment".
I think that line was crossed 1st by him and then, according to some
interpretations, by me.
However, people should notice I never had this attitude with anyone else. I
had a reaction and not an initiative.
> > It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member
> that should set
> > the example) to stop, you are asking me.
>
> So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to
> what I've
> been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside.
> That of course
> is utter bs. If you're on the PMC, it's because you are supposed to *have*
> an opinion.
Please read again what I wrote.
Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop because I was
replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was replying to
me (as you wrote, it takes two!).
So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got reprehended
that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent.
I started this whole thing because almost no one dares to criticize Jon.
Everybody else had to quit replying his attacks and he always had the last
word even while being quite impolite. And almost no third party would dare
to complain about it. I did quit threads like this several times and got
fed up about it.
Silence from Apache veterans was too "loud" in this situations - while
some of them tend to reprehend other people if they do similar things.
I wanted to see how far this could go.
Anyway, Jon is doing a lot of really constructive work now. And, like
anyone else, he does a lot more constructive stuff when he is not into
flame wars, since these take time and energy.
So, I hope everything goes on like it is now and another mess does not
start again. I did not say anything new in this posting.
> James Duncan Davidson
> duncan@x180.net
>
> !try; do()
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" <ji...@iname.com> wrote:
> Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are
> strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh.
I tried to be nice. More than once. It didn't work.
-jon
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/20/01 7:56 PM, "James Cook" <ji...@iname.com> wrote:
> I think most of us feel that Jon deserves a wrap on the knuckles. :)
Not in my charter as I interpret it. Most people here seem to want a fairly
low key, laid back PMC. One that deals with focused issues. Everything else
happens on the public lists. If anyone made a personal threat, then I would
remove them from the lists and rap them on the head and maybe even offer to
send lawyers after them, but until that point -- it's in the community's
arena to decide. At least this is my opinion after hearing how people want
the PMC to run. After all, we say that the ASF pushes down as much power and
control to the committers as possible.
If you want a stronger PMC influence, then the community has to decide to
give the PMC a stronger charter. Or the board does.
<humor basedon="use of word wrap instead of rap">Though next time I see him,
I'll get out the Saran wrap and wrap up his hand.. :)</humor>
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Cook <ji...@iname.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Duncan Davidson [mailto:duncan@x180.net]
> So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to
> what I've
> been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside.
Perhaps as the PMC chair you could ask Jon to tone it down. If his arguments
have merit then why can't he present his points without antagonizing nearly
everyone else? This isn't an isolated occurence. Some may even feel that Jon
is incapable of a rational and meaningful discourse.
Many others seem to be able to voice their opinions (even when they are
strong disagreements) without appearing condescending or unusually harsh.
I think most of us feel that Jon deserves a wrap on the knuckles. :)
jim
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/18/01 2:49 AM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> To be clear, I am fed up that Jon:
> - tells everybody what they should do;
> - judges and condemns people without knowing how their lives are (as with,
> but not only, the several remarks about people not dialing-in in the PMC
> meeting);
> - makes dirty insinuations about others professional lives;
> - flames people;
> - bullies people;
> - etc.
Jon isn't the most polite of people sometimes, but he does have valid
concerns wrt stability and following the rules that we have at the ASF. If
you disagree with what somebody says, it is easy to just say that they
aren't making sense. It takes two to fight, and you are doing more than your
share.
As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as
well used as they could have been. Real money was spent in order to set up
that conference call and it doesn't bode well that it was barely used. I
understand it wasn't perfect and in the future we need to entertain ideas of
how to do this better. But, we can't perform *all* communication via email
-- and knowing people face to face *so* improves communication. We'll have
to work on this... However, if you feel that strongly, you could have asked
about us dialing you or any number of alternatives... Nobody asked about
this during the set up so I assumed that the call-in setup was going to be
good.
> He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the
> clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering
> to him to see what happens.
Jon was around since *way* back in Jserv days. Does that make him part of
the clique? Probably. Face it, cliques happen. Open Source is built on trust
more than anything else and Jon has built up more Open Source projects than
I can keep track of.
I won't ask Jon to stop arguing just like I won't ask Costin or Craig. It
may more may not be constructive, but email is the mechanism that we have
and flames are par for course. The point at which to ask people to stop is
when posts cross the line and become "harassment".
> It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set
> the example) to stop, you are asking me.
So as a PMC member, he shouldn't voice an opinion? That's akin to what I've
been told that as PMC chair, I have to put my opinions aside. That of course
is utter bs. If you're on the PMC, it's because you are supposed to *have*
an opinion.
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Remy Maucherat [mailto:remm@apache.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:29
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
> > >
> > > on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been
> bad,
> > > nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
> > > starting to send yet more flame bait.
> >
> > And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
> >
> > Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
> > about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
> >
> > What are you missing?
>
> However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just
> *stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping
> either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless
> discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than
> what you think Jon is).
It as nothing to do with Costin and all to do with Jon.
I only reply to what Jon says. I already explicitly said that and I clearly
stated that I will stop when he stops.
To be clear, I am fed up that Jon:
- tells everybody what they should do;
- judges and condemns people without knowing how their lives are (as with,
but not only, the several remarks about people not dialing-in in the PMC
meeting);
- makes dirty insinuations about others professional lives;
- flames people;
- bullies people;
- etc.
He always wants to have the last word. Usually (because he is part of the
clique?) no one asks him to stop. So, this time, I have just kept answering
to him to see what happens.
It surprises me that, instead of asking Jon (the PMC member that should set
the example) to stop, you are asking me.
> I'll not veto his proposal just because I'm a TC 4 developer. Actually,
> depending on how he presents it and what he plans to do, I'll +0 or +1 it.
> I had been looking at the HEAD of jakarta-tomcat and I have to say that :
> - last time I tested it, it was faster than TC 3.2 (good)
> - it was also very buggy (bad, but that may have changed since I
> last tried
> it), so I think the support issue is essential
> - the code organization looked cleaner (good)
I never expected other than a fair judgment from you.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Remy Maucherat <re...@apache.org>.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
> >
> > on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been
bad,
> > nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
> > starting to send yet more flame bait.
>
> And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
>
> Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
> about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
>
> What are you missing?
I have almost no bad personnal feelings against Costin. At some point, I was
a bit upset about him because :
- he did stuff which I personnally took offense of, and for which he did
apologize to me (so it's past history)
- I feel like he could be more willing to accept compromises
Really, I'm fine with him, and I've been really impressed by him at the
meeting (there were a lot of misunderstandings before, which hopefully were
clarified).
However, I cannot say the same thing about you. Frankly, could you just
*stop* that ? I don't think you fully realize it, but you're not helping
either Costin or this project in any way by getting into this pointless
discussion (other than proving to me that you are way more childish than
what you think Jon is).
I'll not veto his proposal just because I'm a TC 4 developer. Actually,
depending on how he presents it and what he plans to do, I'll +0 or +1 it.
I had been looking at the HEAD of jakarta-tomcat and I have to say that :
- last time I tested it, it was faster than TC 3.2 (good)
- it was also very buggy (bad, but that may have changed since I last tried
it), so I think the support issue is essential
- the code organization looked cleaner (good)
Remy
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
Paulo,
Please stop - don't answer back :-)
Costin
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001, Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
> >
> > on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad,
> > nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
> > starting to send yet more flame bait.
>
> And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
>
> Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
> about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
>
> What are you missing?
>
>
> > Also, I'm going to ask YET AGAIN and which we ALL agreed on in the
> > meeting...
> >
> > Do not refer to Tomcat 3.3 as a version number. Tomcat 3.3 does not exist
> > before the proposal that you still need to make and should not be referred
> > to at all. Pick another name, it will confuse people by referring to it as
> > Tomcat 3.3 because you are setting expectations that may or may not ever
> > materialize (depending on the majority committer consensus here
> > according to the rules).
>
> It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to it
> as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever has
> to
> become confused, already is.
>
> Anyway, this is not the User list.
>
>
> Have fun,
>
> Paulo Gaspar
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Costin
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>.
On 1/17/2001 at 11:17 PM Craig R. McClanahan wrote:
> Many of those rules and conventions are documented (such as the rules
on voting), but some are not. One of the things I took away from the
PMC meeting yesterday is the need to better articulate those rules.
As a new committer to another Jakarata project, I personally think that
would be very helpful.
There seem to be many deep conventions in play here that I cannot find
in a reading of the ASF by-laws or the project guidelines. So far, the
only documentation I've found is <
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html > and <
http://www.apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html >. Apparently, there is
also a "Rules for Revolutionaries" document, but I haven't been able to
find it. (URL?)
Although I probably don't understand all the nuances of the "Apache
Culture", as a Jakarta Committer, here is a draft "patch" that I would
suggest to decisions.html (mostly parity-checks):
--
Voting
Any Developer or Committer may call for a Vote on the Developer mailing
list. It is preferred that a Vote be preceded by a formal proposal
offered for discussion purposes. A call for a formal Vote must contain
the legend "[VOTE-action item]" in its subject line, where "action
item" is Release Plan, Public Release, Showstopper, or Product Change.
A * Public Release * Vote is not binding until the individual who
tendered the Vote posts a followup message with the legend
"[VOTE-RESULT]" summaring the replies. Any other Vote that receives any
binding -1 reply (later withdrawn or not) must also post a
"[VOTE-RESULT]" message to be binding. All Votes receiving only +1 or
+/-0 replies are subject to lazy approval. Any question regarding the
outcome of a Vote may be refrerred by a Committer to the PMC for
arbitration.
All votes by Committers should include the word "binding" next to their
vote. When tendering a -1 vote on a Consensus item, a Committer should
include the phrase "binding veto" next to their Vote, to make their
intent clear.
Persons wishing to discuss a Vote before replying, may open a
"[VOTE-ISSUES]" thread, to help eliminate premature vetos.
Other Action Items
When announcing their Short Term Plans or Long Term Plans, developers
should include the legend "[ANN-action item]" in the subject line of
their message to the Developers list.
Proposals are not a formal Action Item, but should be labeled
"[PROPOSAL]" in their subject line.
Action Item Voting Types
Note "Lazy" means that is not required to tally the votes, unless a -1
reply is posted. All votes are lazy except for a public Release vote.
Long Term Plans - No vote required.
Short Term Plans - No vote required.
Release Plan - Lazy Majority vote on each issue.
Release Testing - Consensus vote before public Release.
Showstoppers - Lazy consensus until resolved and removed from status
file.
Product Change - Lazy consensus.
--
>If the vote is about a change to the source code or documentation and
the primary author is a Developer and not a Commiter, the primary
author of what is being changed may also cast a binding vote on that
issue.
I would consider striking this, as I believe Committer status on
Jakarta may be easier to get than on Apache, and there is less of a
need for this exception.
--
> that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that meets my concerns
about support)
Here's another place where it gets confusing. Technically, it seems
that we can't "veto" a Release Plan, since it is a Majority Vote.
(Though, you might be able to veto a specific issue, if it involved a
Product Change.) Someone could ultimately veto a public "Release" since
that is a Consensus Vote.
The cultural idea being, I guess, that this is a meritocracy, and
nothing can be binding until we have the actual code in front of us.
Another nit is that the all-important public release is not listed as
an Action Item, although it is implied by the description of Release
Plan and Showstoppers.
-- Ted Husted, Husted dot Com, Fairport NY USA.
-- Custom Software ~ Technical Services.
-- Tel 716 425-0252; Fax 716 223-2506.
-- http://www.husted.com/
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:Craig.McClanahan@eng.sun.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 08:18
>
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>
> However, one of them is that there is no such thing as a
> "version" of any Apache
> project until there is a vote to go that way, and elect a
> particular code base
> to be that version. See below for more.
No doubt about that.
I already started using "3.x HEAD" instead of "3.3" - which seems to
be acceptable.
I only did not do it earlier because no one stated that this would be
an acceptable term. That should have been clearly stated in the list
already. I was told I should stop using "3.3" but was given no
alternative.
Since everybody has been using "3.3" (including those that now ask not
to do it) it should be clearly stated in the list that this should stop
and what the correct name is.
That would be a way to avoid that people talking about the subject
would be confused. And this - in the DEV list - looks so important to
me as avoiding people to think that the 3.3 version exists.
(Again, just in the DEV list. Talking about 3.3 in the USER list would
be a mess.)
Still, for me (and I believe that for must of the others) it has been
just another name to call the "3.x HEAD". It has been clear that this
wasn't yet an approved version.
> > Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
>
> It was, until it was elected as the code base for 4.0. Now, it's the
> established direction for 4.x.
>
> Note that there was no "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" branch, or any such
> thing as "Tomcat
> 4.1", until the vote that took place last week. Now, there is.
> Such a thing hasn't happened for 3.3.
Clear too.
> [... Crystal clear explanation of the fix decided for the "3.3"
> issue ...]
> > At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
>
> Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's still a new
> version, and still
> needs to follow the same proposal and voting procedures.
Of course.
My statement is out of context. Notice that I was just disagree about
it being a "revolution" as Jon stated.
But this is a slightly subjective and there will always be different
opinions.
> NOTE: When this proposal is made, people who vote on it should
> remember the
> following:
> * Electing a code base needs at least three +1 votes and no -1 votes.
>
> [... a clear list of other rules ...]
>
> (FYI: I am on record -- see the PMC Meeting Minutes that will be
> published
> shortly -- that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that
> meets my concerns about support.)
I would never expect another thing from you.
But the veto power can still be misused by someone. That concern was
already expressed by other people (Hans? I am not sure) in the list and
a mechanism should be created to address that.
> >
> > Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I
> > think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about
> > what 5.0 should be in the near future.
>
> So far (to my knowledge), Costin has not proposed it for this
> purpose.
That was just an answer to something that Jon said.
> [... More crystal clear explanations about name rules...]
>
> Craig McClanahan
Thank you very much Craig. I still had not seen all this stuff put together
in such crystal clear way.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by "Craig R. McClanahan" <Cr...@eng.sun.com>.
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
> having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
>
> Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
> about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be
> concerned about when our main priority is to have something better than
> 3.2 for production _real soon_.
>
> 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having
> it or not.
>
Paulo (and others), an important thing to remember is that Apache projects (as
opposed to an arbitrary open source project) operate under a set of rules and
conventions that, in effect, are the "Apache culture". Many of those rules and
conventions are documented (such as the rules on voting), but some are not. One
of the things I took away from the PMC meeting yesterday is the need to better
articulate those rules.
However, one of them is that there is no such thing as a "version" of any Apache
project until there is a vote to go that way, and elect a particular code base
to be that version. See below for more.
>
> Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
>
It was, until it was elected as the code base for 4.0. Now, it's the
established direction for 4.x.
Note that there was no "jakarta-tomcat-4.1" branch, or any such thing as "Tomcat
4.1", until the vote that took place last week. Now, there is. Such a thing
hasn't happened for 3.3.
It is obvious why this hasn't happened -- this is one of those "culture things"
that wasn't clearly spelled out within Jakarta. Costin agreed to rectify this,
so a "3.3" version proposal is likely to be forthcoming shortly.
>
> At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
>
Regardless of whether or not this is true, it's still a new version, and still
needs to follow the same proposal and voting procedures.
NOTE: When this proposal is made, people who vote on it should remember the
following:
* Electing a code base needs at least three +1 votes and no -1 votes.
* Only votes of committers on Tomcat (*all* versions -- it is all one project
until someone forks it to a separate name) are binding.
* A +1 vote on electing a code base implies an *obligation* on the part
of the voter to actively support the code base. Among other things,
that includes someone taking on the role of release manager, all +1-ers
being actively involved in fixing remaining bugs, *and* (after the release
ultimately happens, if and when it does) supporting users of the release
-- in our environment, that means answering user questions on TOMCAT-USER.
(FYI: I am on record -- see the PMC Meeting Minutes that will be published
shortly -- that I will *not* veto a release plan for 3.3 that meets my concerns
about support.)
>
> Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I
> think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about
> what 5.0 should be in the near future.
>
So far (to my knowledge), Costin has not proposed it for this purpose. However,
it is important to note that no vote is necessary to declare a revolution
(starting with the code currently in the HEAD branch of "jakarta-tomcat") and
working towards that goal. The only restriction is that no one can call it
"Tomcat" in the mean time.
This principle was actually articulated in the "Rules for Revolutionaries"
document, which was triggered when I (incorrectly) tried to use the name
"Tomcat.Next" before there had been any such agreement by the development
community. The result was the creation of the name Catalina, which did not
become "Tomcat 4.0" until the vote that made it so.
Names are important -- for a variety of reasons, including legal ones (because
the name "Tomcat" belongs to the Apache Software Foundation, not to the
individual committers). Therefore, we as developers need to respect those
reasons and become more careful a out our use of those names.
Craig McClanahan
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Filip Hanik <fi...@filip.net>.
ok guys,
this has got a little bit out of hand.
I'm sure I am not alone on saying this, but could we focus on the core
issues, the development of tomcat.
if this list is to enhance the development and the communication of and
around tomcat, then we are not really doing it right.
and if you want to attract new developers, then we need to improve the way
we communicate.
here are a few books, worth to take a look at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749424044/qid=979792228/sr=1-1/ref=s
c_b_1/107-5367122-9735704
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0943233127/qid=979792092/sr=1-2/ref=s
c_b_2/107-5367122-9735704
Filip
~
Namaste - I bow to the divine in you.
~
Filip Hanik
Technical Architect
filip@filip.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Stevens" <jo...@latchkey.com>
To: <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: Forming an opinion
on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> 1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and
statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried
to bring up motions in the meeting to create censorship over what people say
on the list.
> 2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect
> that.
The PMC was attended by ~25 people and had open phone lines for which you
could have listened in on. I have also told you what has been decided on.
That is what you are disrespecting.
> What do you know about what my experience is?
If you have experience then show it by acting like you do. So far, you
haven't done any of that, therefore, I can conclude that you either cannot
act like you have experience or you don't have any. My judgement call on
that is that you don't have much experience.
> "Costin and others"?
> Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard evidence
that
> allows you to proceed to an arrest!
Ok, all of the people actively sending commits to Tomcat 3.x.
> AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not?
I have seen releases made in the past that have been buggy. For example 3.0.
That actually hurt this project quite a bit by increasing the amount of
support that was needed as well as the fact that in many people's mind, it
set a precedent that people have been trying to combat for a long
time...that Tomcat is slow and buggy and that the code is hard to understand
and read.
-jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:42
>
> on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > 1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
>
> I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and
> statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He
> even tried to bring up motions in the meeting to create censorship over
> what people say on the list.
You should. I am not even going to say what I think about the kind of
pressures you make.
> > 2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect
> > that.
>
> The PMC was attended by ~25 people and had open phone lines for which you
> could have listened in on. I have also told you what has been decided on.
> That is what you are disrespecting.
I already told you that I have a life out of Tomcat. Other priorities. What
part did you not understand.
> > What do you know about what my experience is?
>
> If you have experience then show it by acting like you do. So far, you
> haven't done any of that, therefore, I can conclude that you either cannot
> act like you have experience or you don't have any. My judgment call on
> that is that you don't have much experience.
Why do you judge so much?
Should I also tell what the way you act suggests?
It getting personal the way of Open Source (since you are so experient in
the "way of Open Source")?
> > "Costin and others"?
> > Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard
> evidence that
> > allows you to proceed to an arrest!
>
> Ok, all of the people actively sending commits to Tomcat 3.x.
I see more support from Costin and those others than from you. That is
what I clearly see in the list.
> > AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not?
>
> I have seen releases made in the past that have been buggy. For
> example 3.0.
> That actually hurt this project quite a bit by increasing the amount of
> support that was needed as well as the fact that in many people's mind, it
> set a precedent that people have been trying to combat for a long
> time...that Tomcat is slow and buggy and that the code is hard to
> understand
> and read.
Why does an already distant past say anything about the present?
I don't even think that the circumstance and people involved in 3.x HEAD are
the same as with 3.0. They are being quite systematic about bugs, did you
notice that?
Notice also that I got to an accepted name for 3.3 (3.x HEAD) without your
help. I am not getting anything constructive from you even when I ask.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/17/01 7:43 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> 1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
I don't see a flame there. I'm simply speaking truth. Costin's actions and
statements have clearly shown that he believes in censorship. He even tried
to bring up motions in the meeting to create censorship over what people say
on the list.
> 2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect
> that.
The PMC was attended by ~25 people and had open phone lines for which you
could have listened in on. I have also told you what has been decided on.
That is what you are disrespecting.
> What do you know about what my experience is?
If you have experience then show it by acting like you do. So far, you
haven't done any of that, therefore, I can conclude that you either cannot
act like you have experience or you don't have any. My judgement call on
that is that you don't have much experience.
> "Costin and others"?
> Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard evidence that
> allows you to proceed to an arrest!
Ok, all of the people actively sending commits to Tomcat 3.x.
> AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not?
I have seen releases made in the past that have been buggy. For example 3.0.
That actually hurt this project quite a bit by increasing the amount of
support that was needed as well as the fact that in many people's mind, it
set a precedent that people have been trying to combat for a long
time...that Tomcat is slow and buggy and that the code is hard to understand
and read.
-jon
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 04:00
>
> on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> >> How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2?
> >> I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims.
> >
> > And the other committers and Larry and...
>
> Give me concrete evidence, not claims.
Man, you only claim the opposite and you don't even seem to know 3.3's
code.
> > I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
>
> Yes. I am.
Glad to have it clear.
> Yes. I am going to tell you what what decided and what you should follow.
LOL
Someone else must make it official.
> > Even if the majority of the PMC thinks one way, I still have the right
> > to think otherwise and talk accordingly.
>
> Unlike Costin, I am fully against censorship and therefore am not going to
> disagree with you. However, when something is *decided* and
> *agreed* upon at
> the PMC level, it needs to be taken seriously and respected. This is what
> you are *not* doing.
1. You are flaming Costin again (is that harassment?);
2. Whatever the PMC decided was not published yet. How can I disrespect
that.
> >> Again, you simply don't understand how development models work.
> >
> > Sure! I went trough 12 years of software development without
> having a clue.
>
> Open Source Software Development != Closed Source Software Development.
>
> My assertion is that you are lacking a clue with regards to OSS
> development.
LOL
What do you know about what my experience is?
> > I am glad you are so happy for thinking you know what I
> understand or not.
>
> Then word your statements in such a way to make me believe that you do
> understand. So far, you haven't done that.
I do not need that _you_ to believe me.
> > What concrete evidence to you have to support yours?
>
> Costin and others have no been providing any sort of support for others on
> the mailing list. That is clear. Read the archives of this list.
LOL
"Costin and others"?
Give names, dates and complete the police work with some hard evidence that
allows you to proceed to an arrest!
> Now, what concrete evidence do you have that releasing CVS head
> as 3.3 "will help"?
This is pathetic!
AGAIN: What concrete evidence do you have that it will not?
Those that claim it will help know the code. You know zip!
You hate the thing! You dont even touch it!
> > Project dead line. Know the concept?
>
> You seem to have plenty of time to answer my emails.
This is break time. It is not an effort. I type fast. None of you business.
Have fun,
Paulo
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/17/01 6:44 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58
>>
>> on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>>
>> Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
>
> I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
Because that is where we are at! Duh! If the PMC group (including Costin)
agrees on something then that should be respected. The fact of the matter is
that the previous proposals have not been respected and I'm standing up to
fix that.
>> How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2?
>> I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims.
>
> And the other committers and Larry and...
Give me concrete evidence, not claims.
>>> 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having
>>> it or not.
>>
>> It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal
>> to make it so.
>
> I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
Yes. I am.
>>> Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
>>>
>>> At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
>>
>> No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete
>> refactor of
>> the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution.
>> If you had
>> listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would
>> have had this clarified for you.
>
> If you are happier that way, I am glad you keep telling what I should do.
Yes. I am going to tell you what what decided and what you should follow.
> I may have different ideas and still consider that to be an evolution.
Fine.
> Even if the majority of the PMC thinks one way, I still have the right
> to think otherwise and talk accordingly.
Unlike Costin, I am fully against censorship and therefore am not going to
disagree with you. However, when something is *decided* and *agreed* upon at
the PMC level, it needs to be taken seriously and respected. This is what
you are *not* doing.
>> Again, you simply don't understand how development models work.
>
> Sure! I went trough 12 years of software development without having a clue.
Open Source Software Development != Closed Source Software Development.
My assertion is that you are lacking a clue with regards to OSS development.
>>> Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I
>>> have understanding problems when I do not agree with you.
>>
>> It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind
>> because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things
>> where clarified and discussed.
>
> I am glad you are so happy for thinking you know what I understand or not.
Then word your statements in such a way to make me believe that you do
understand. So far, you haven't done that.
>>> My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation
>>> here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help.
>>
>> You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought?
>
> What concrete evidence to you have to support yours?
Costin and others have no been providing any sort of support for others on
the mailing list. That is clear. Read the archives of this list.
Now, what concrete evidence do you have that releasing CVS head as 3.3 "will
help"?
> Project dead line. Know the concept?
You seem to have plenty of time to answer my emails.
-jon
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 02:58
>
> on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
> How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2?
> I have yet to see proof of that other than Costin's claims.
And the other committers and Larry and...
> > 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having
> > it or not.
>
> It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal
> to make it so.
I am talking about names and you are throwing bureaucracy at me.
> > Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
> >
> > At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
>
> No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete
> refactor of
> the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution.
> If you had
> listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would
> have had this clarified for you.
If you are happier that way, I am glad you keep telling what I should do.
I may have different ideas and still consider that to be an evolution.
Even if the majority of the PMC thinks one way, I still have the right
to think otherwise and talk accordingly.
> Again, you simply don't understand how development models work.
Sure! I went trough 12 years of software development without having a clue.
> > Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I
> > have understanding problems when I do not agree with you.
>
> It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind
> because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things
> where clarified and discussed.
I am glad you are so happy for thinking you know what I understand or not.
Copy/Paste from my previous posting:
Not your business why I did or did not. (participate in the meeting)
- Maybe Boss wouldn't like if I was connected to the USA for such a long
time (I am in Europe, in case you didn't notice);
- Maybe I was at a customer;
- Maybe I had a dead line.
> > My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation
> > here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help.
>
> You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought?
What concrete evidence to you have to support yours?
> [... a lot of bureaucracy crap that Jon uses when he has nothing more
> constructive to argument (i.e.: quite often)
> ...]
> Therefore, it is in your best interest to quit emailing me ...
I can stop when you stop. Give the example!
Remember: I only answer.
> ...and to figure out
> how you are going to prove that Tomcat 3.x will continue to be properly
> supported.
I will help several other people proving that.
> > Supporting him is important, but I have other priorities too.
>
> Like?
Are you my mother?
> > In the meantime, you arguments are so poor that I do not have to spend
> > so much brain power has if I was coding or something. It is kind of
> > having a break - I need breaks too you know?
>
> What part of my argument is poor?
What do you mean with "What part"?
> > You know nothing about me, my life and my schedule. It would be polite
> > if you would refrain to judge how I should spend my time.
>
> I haven't made any suggestions about how you should spend your time.
You did several. (Loss of short term memory again!)
> [... Some crap about how I should have done things! ...]
> > - Maybe I had a dead line.
>
> Go borrow a phone line.
Project dead line. Know the concept?
> Your reasons are seriously undermining everything that you give as an
> argument.
The idea is not giving you reasons. The idea is to tell you that I may
have a life outside Tomcat and other troubles to take care.
And it is not of you business.
Maybe you should not judge the people that weren't there so lightly.
> > I have seen other people defending the usefulness of 3.3 and
> that didn't sink
> > anything in your brain.
>
> THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION! Fuck! how many times does that need to
> be repeated
> to you?
For me, it is the main point. Keep repeating.
> > Beholder of the truth syndrome again?
>
> Beholder of a complete lack of ability to understand basic concepts
> syndrome?
LOL
> thanks,
> -jon
You're welcome,
Paulo
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/17/01 5:50 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
> having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
Nope. No proposal for that has been made yet.
> Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
> about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be
> concerned about when our main priority is to have something better than
> 3.2 for production _real soon_.
How do you know that what is in the cvs HEAD is better than 3.2? I have yet
to see proof of that other than Costin's claims.
> 3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having
> it or not.
It may be obvious to you, however there has never been a proposal to make it
so.
> Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
>
> At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
No it isn't. That is where you are 100% wrong. 3.3 is a complete refactor of
the core code and is therefore much more than just an evolution. If you had
listened in on the conversation yesterday, like you should have, you would
have had this clarified for you.
> Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I
> think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about
> what 5.0 should be in the near future.
Again, you simply don't understand how development models work.
> Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I
> have understanding problems when I do not agree with you.
It is clear you don't understand things and now you are being left behind
because you *choose* to not participate in the meeting where these things
where clarified and discussed.
> My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation
> here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help.
You *think*. What concrete evidence do you have to support that thought?
What proposals have been made here suggesting that the CVS head of Tomcat be
released as 3.3? None! In case you missed it, there will be NO release of
the CVS HEAD of Tomcat until there is a proposal made, the support issues
have been resolved and that there is majority committeer consensus that it
be so. Period. This was agreed on in the meeting.
Therefore, it is in your best interest to quit emailing me and to figure out
how you are going to prove that Tomcat 3.x will continue to be properly
supported.
> Supporting him is important, but I have other priorities too.
Like?
> In the meantime, you arguments are so poor that I do not have to spend
> so much brain power has if I was coding or something. It is kind of
> having a break - I need breaks too you know?
What part of my argument is poor?
> You know nothing about me, my life and my schedule. It would be polite
> if you would refrain to judge how I should spend my time.
I haven't made any suggestions about how you should spend your time.
> Not your business why I did or did not.
> - Maybe Boss wouldn't like if I was connected to the USA for such a long
> time (I am in Europe, in case you didn't notice);
Phone rates are cheap and you could have used a calling card and also asked
your boss for approval.
> - Maybe I was at a customer;
The meeting was planned well ahead of time and you could have scheduled
yourself.
> - Maybe I had a dead line.
Go borrow a phone line.
Your reasons are seriously undermining everything that you give as an
argument.
> I have seen other people defending the usefulness of 3.3 and that didn't sink
> anything in your brain.
THAT ISN'T THE QUESTION! Fuck! how many times does that need to be repeated
to you?
> Beholder of the truth syndrome again?
Beholder of a complete lack of ability to understand basic concepts
syndrome?
thanks,
-jon
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
First, you write too much about a name when the question has always been
having or not a 3.3 in the 3.x branch.
Most of us (for whom having a 3.3 is interesting) are still not concerned
about having or not a revolution and a Tomcat 5. It is too soon to be
concerned about when our main priority is to have something better than
3.2 for production _real soon_.
3.3 is the obvious name and the discussion has always been around having
it or not.
Catalina was a revolution, a proposal on following a different path.
At the moment, for me (and possibly others) 3.3 is an evolution.
Maybe (or maybe not) some people already see Costin's work as 5.0 but I
think that most of us don't go that far. I will not be thinking about
what 5.0 should be in the near future.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 01:47
>
>
> did...he called his revolution "Catalina". Why is this such a difficult
> concept for you to understand?
Answered above.
Maybe you feel happy has the beholder of the Truth but I do not feel I
have understanding problems when I do not agree with you.
> > Or we have another kind of jobs and so.
> > (-"Hey boss, can I call the US just for some hours?")
>
> However you can spend time on this list sending email and arguing over the
> same points over and over again?
Man, I already pointed out that I am mostly answering to something you say.
If you can stop, I can stop too.
- My answers are short;
- I type fast;
- It is not your damn business.
> Lets see, I spent 8+ hours in a meeting
> yesterday over crap that you are trying to back Costin on. How about
> supporting Costin when he really needed it?
My main motivation in life is not supporting Costin. My main motivation
here is scratching my itches and I think that 3.3 will help.
Supporting him is important, but I have other priorities too.
Besides, while you are nagging me, you are not nagging him. Maybe he
can work a bit better that way.
In the meantime, you arguments are so poor that I do not have to spend
so much brain power has if I was coding or something. It is kind of
having a break - I need breaks too you know?
You know nothing about me, my life and my schedule. It would be polite
if you would refrain to judge how I should spend my time.
> >> So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in)
> >
> > Should I show you my Agenda?
> > Do you want to organize my schedule for me too?
>
> No, I expect that if you are going to spend time on this list
> sending email
> all day long and responding to me that you would have enough of a care in
> this project to actually dial in and express your opinions in the forum
> where it mattered the most.
Not your business why I did or did not.
- Maybe Boss wouldn't like if I was connected to the USA for such a long
time (I am in Europe, in case you didn't notice);
- Maybe I was at a customer;
- Maybe I had a dead line.
> You might have also gotten a chance
> to listen to
> the same things that I have been saying all along repeated to
> Costin by many
> other people in a room. Maybe the real facts of this whole mess would have
> then sunk in to your brain as well.
I have seen other people defending the usefulness of 3.3 and that didn't
sink
anything in your brain.
Beholder of the truth syndrome again?
> thanks,
>
> -jon
You're welcome,
Paulo
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/17/01 4:42 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Sure! Kick him harder!
Lets see, he started out his *first* email after the meeting with flame
bait, his next email was a pseudo apology, his third email is asking for
censorship.
Sure. I'm going to kick back. I'm tired of putting up with his bullshit.
> Other people already use the "3.3" forbiden expression and that didn't
> disturb you that much.
I'm going to quote my original email on this:
Subject: [MY_OPINION] Tomcat 3.x
In fact, I'm pretty strongly -1 on Tomcat 3.3. If anything it would need to
be suggested as Tomcat 5.0 because as far as I can tell, we have already
come to the conclusion that Catalina will be Tomcat 4.0.
Notice the subject was NOT 3.3, it was 3.x.
> So, what about being a bit constructive (for a change) and tell us what
> are we supposed to call to Tomcat 3.3?
> (Oops! I did again!)
I don't care what you call it. Propose a name! That is what myself and
others have been asking Costin to do all along! In fact, look at what Craig
did...he called his revolution "Catalina". Why is this such a difficult
concept for you to understand?
> Or we have another kind of jobs and so.
> (-"Hey boss, can I call the US just for some hours?")
However you can spend time on this list sending email and arguing over the
same points over and over again? Lets see, I spent 8+ hours in a meeting
yesterday over crap that you are trying to back Costin on. How about
supporting Costin when he really needed it?
>> So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in)
>
> Should I show you my Agenda?
> Do you want to organize my schedule for me too?
No, I expect that if you are going to spend time on this list sending email
all day long and responding to me that you would have enough of a care in
this project to actually dial in and express your opinions in the forum
where it mattered the most. You might have also gotten a chance to listen to
the same things that I have been saying all along repeated to Costin by many
other people in a room. Maybe the real facts of this whole mess would have
then sunk in to your brain as well.
thanks,
-jon
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 01:01
>
> > Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
> > about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
>
> He apologized for taking things personally and not actually what
> he did and then attempted to get us to feel sorry for him because it was a
> hard day. I don't buy it at all.
Sure! Kick him harder!
> > It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to
it
> > as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever
has
> > to become confused, already is.
>
> Right and I'm asking that references to 3.3 stop and we agreed
> upon that in
> the meeting. Yet again, I'm having to repeat myself to Costin because he
> refuses to listen. In fact, right after the discussion about stopping
> calling it 3.3 (which he agreed to), Costin turned around and
> referred to it as 3.3.
Which, of course, would confuse the people in the room that just had eard
about it.
> Then he did it again on this list. I just don't get it.
> If you agree to something STICK TO IT. Period.
Other people already use the "3.3" forbiden expression and that didn't
disturb you that much.
So, what about being a bit constructive (for a change) and tell us what
are we supposed to call to Tomcat 3.3?
(Oops! I did again!)
> Now I get flamed (again) for trying to enforce what we agreed on in the
> meeting. WTF?
I didn't flame you. It was a quite polite remark!
If my posting was a flame, how shoud I call yours?
> p.s. The phone dialin attendance was dismal. No one from this list who has
> been directly concerned with what is going on and having
> commented on things
> bothered to dial in. Obviously all of you who *really* care about
> this whole
> matter don't care *that* much.
Or we have another kind of jobs and so.
(-"Hey boss, can I call the US just for some hours?")
> So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in)
Should I show you my Agenda?
Do you want to organize my schedule for me too?
> I suggest that you stop
> discussing this any further and wait for the meeting notes to be
> published.
Man, I am just answering to you! If you are able to stop, I am sure
I can do it too!
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/17/01 3:33 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
>
> Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
> about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
He apologized for taking things personally and not actually what he did and
then attempted to get us to feel sorry for him because it was a hard day. I
don't buy it at all.
> It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to it
> as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever has
> to
> become confused, already is.
>
> Anyway, this is not the User list.
Right and I'm asking that references to 3.3 stop and we agreed upon that in
the meeting. Yet again, I'm having to repeat myself to Costin because he
refuses to listen. In fact, right after the discussion about stopping
calling it 3.3 (which he agreed to), Costin turned around and referred to it
as 3.3. Then he did it again on this list. I just don't get it. If you agree
to something STICK TO IT. Period.
Now I get flamed (again) for trying to enforce what we agreed on in the
meeting. WTF?
p.s. The phone dialin attendance was dismal. No one from this list who has
been directly concerned with what is going on and having commented on things
bothered to dial in. Obviously all of you who *really* care about this whole
matter don't care *that* much.
So, Paulo (who also didn't bother to dial in), I suggest that you stop
discussing this any further and wait for the meeting notes to be published.
-jon
RE: Forming an opinion
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 20:17
>
> on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad,
> nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by
> starting to send yet more flame bait.
And, of course, you are biting the bait, the hook, the line...
Enough was already said about that. Sam, Hans, Amy and I managed to talk
about it with no flames and Costin already apologized.
What are you missing?
> Also, I'm going to ask YET AGAIN and which we ALL agreed on in the
> meeting...
>
> Do not refer to Tomcat 3.3 as a version number. Tomcat 3.3 does not exist
> before the proposal that you still need to make and should not be referred
> to at all. Pick another name, it will confuse people by referring to it as
> Tomcat 3.3 because you are setting expectations that may or may not ever
> materialize (depending on the majority committer consensus here
> according to the rules).
It might be a bit too late for that, since we all have been referring to it
as Tomcat 3.3 during the last weeks (you included and a lot). Whomever has
to
become confused, already is.
Anyway, this is not the User list.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/17/01 10:28 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Costin
> ( believe me, it was one of my worst days, I hope you understand a bit my
> feelings. )
Why was it one of your worst days? I don't see how it could have been bad,
nor do I see how that could influence your actions here by starting to send
yet more flame bait.
Also, I'm going to ask YET AGAIN and which we ALL agreed on in the
meeting...
Do not refer to Tomcat 3.3 as a version number. Tomcat 3.3 does not exist
before the proposal that you still need to make and should not be referred
to at all. Pick another name, it will confuse people by referring to it as
Tomcat 3.3 because you are setting expectations that may or may not ever
materialize (depending on the majority committer consensus here according to
the rules).
Where are those meeting notes Sam?
thanks,
-jon
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it
> can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about
> making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the
> committers in the project and in line with our guidelines.
Sorry for taking it as a personal thing, I'll stop discussing
that.
Costin
( believe me, it was one of my worst days, I hope you understand a bit my
feelings. )
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
> Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes
> that a 3.3 release proposal can get.
That's exactly right.
> The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3
> doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and
> Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am.
> [...]
> P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a
> bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig
> alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ).
It saddens me to see this type of comment after the meeting. I'm only
going to say this once and I will not get into a discussion about it
again. *No one* has said anything about you being a bad person in these
discussions, or that the code is bad, or anything like that. As was
clear in the meeting yesterday, the whole issue is about the fact that
major refactoring work has continued on the HEAD without a release
plan and agreed upon goals, and a concern that releasing the result
without guarantees that there are committers willing to supporting it
can tarnish Tomcat's reputation. It's *not* personal, it's about
making sure that the development is done in a way supported by the
committers in the project and in line with our guidelines.
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
Re: Forming an opinion
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
Hi Alex,
I'm doing nightly builds and source packages at:
http://jakarta.apache.org/builds/tomcat/nightly-3.3
Regarding the PMC meeting - it seems all depends on the support and votes
that a 3.3 release proposal can get.
The main concern ( or at least my understanding of it ) was that 3.3
doesn't have enough support, and I'm ... well, you can read Jon's and
Pier's postings so far to get a feeling what kind of person I am.
I'll be posting a release plan this evening, that will be voted - and 3.3
will happen if enough people are willing to vote it _and_ help make it
happen.
I'm still working on the plan, but there are 2 big problems to be
resolved:
1. Bug fixes. Tomcat 3.3 will be released _only_ if it'll have all the
known bugs fixed, and at least 3 commiters are willing to help fix further
bugs.
2. Code review and documentation. I'm not going to propose a release
unless and until there is a reasonable amount of documentation (
architecture and comments ) and enough eyeballs read the code and send
their comments.
Since this will going to be the last version of 3.x( only major bug fixes
after - any further development can happen only in revolutions or in
another place ) it'll have to basically finish the job and achieve the
goals of tomcat 3.
I can't stress enough how critical it'll be to get your help. Either bugs
or comments on the code or architecture.
I'll try to get some time off and I'll spend all my free time in the next
months to make it happen - but regardless of what I do, tomcat 3.3 will
not happen if you don't help. It doesn't matter how small the bug is -
what's important is that _you_ help fixing it.
Please don't get involved into any flame - and please ignore Jon and Pier
- just don't answer to any provocations. For my health I'm going to
filter them out, since I'm not that good at ignoring.
Costin
P.S. the other conclusion of the PMC ( as I understand it ) was that I'm a
bad person that can't be trusted, and all work for 3.2 was done by Craig
alone ( my apologies to Larry, Henri and Nacho ).
P.P.S. My sincere apologies to Roy and Brian and Hans and Sam and James -
I said bad things about the PMC ( that I don't trust it and it's one-sided
), listening you make me believe there is hope.
> Hi all!
>
> I've seen a lot of discussion here on Tomcat 3.3 vs 4.0. Without some
> knowledge about the inside workings of each version, it's very hard to
> follow it -- I mean, find out the actual issues behind the "politics" --
> or the politics behind the actual issues.
>
> The article linked by cmanolache, 'Internal Tomcat', is very good IMHO.
> But then it's all words; there's nothing like studying the way it's
> implemented.
>
> So I was trying to at least take a look at the code and the way it's
> organized. But the link to the 3.x nightly builds is broken, so no code
> for 3.3. Do I need CVS to get it? (Don't get used to those weird
> commands.)
>
> And, by the way, has PMC made any important decision about Tomcat 3.3?
>
> Thanks a lot,
>
> Alex.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Costin