You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cayenne.apache.org by Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> on 2006/08/08 17:11:26 UTC
IRC Channel?
Hi All,
What does everyone think of setting up an IRC channel for cayenne?
TTFN,
-bd
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
I'd like to add my support to those who, far more eloquently than I
could have done, have explained why IRC cannot be an inclusive or
truly public forum for discussion.
I have always taken the view that email is an essential characteristic
of the way the ASF works, and it is precisely because it is globally
accessable and asynchronous that real group decisions can be made and
real consensus reached.
I've always felt uneasy about cliques forming around some out of
channel communication, be it phone, pub, ICQ, IRC or, yes, even
hackathons. It is not just the decision making which should be public
and accessable but the debate that informs the decision making process
should be too.
In this respect I think that IRC is actually more harmful that the
benefit of relationship building which Henri ascribes to it. We are
not all capable of participating in other forms of communication and
group discussions. However by definition we are all capable of
participating in the lists.
Relationship building is a Good Thing (just ask my wife!) but it is
possible to build personal relationships with other contributors
without removing any aspects of the public debate.
d.
> > No it doesn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by sophitia que <so...@gmail.com>.
On 8/14/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
> > Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
> > published/ promoted however, does.
>
> No it doesn't. It's exclusionary in that email allows timezone
> independent participation, and IMO, reading an IRC chat after the fact
> is far different than being there. It's like reading a musical score -
> far different than being there.
My concern with IRC is that people don't necessarily have egalitarian access
to IRC, whether it be because of time zone differences or for other
reasons. For example, I have worked at places where IRC access was
prohibited or restricted. If a great deal of community bonding occurs
through IRC, then some people do not have the ability to participate, and
that doesn't seem to be very egalitarian to me. An analogy would be that
face to face interactions are also far more marginally beneficial towards
building relationships between people. However, we'd never advocate that
face to face meetings be a suggested method towards encouraging project
communication. It's great when it happens, but it should never supplant the
main means of communications.
Susan
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Alex Karasulu <ao...@bellsouth.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>>> The community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
>>> method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
>> Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
>> published/ promoted however, does.
>
> No it doesn't. It's exclusionary in that email allows timezone
> independent participation, and IMO, reading an IRC chat after the fact
> is far different than being there. It's like reading a musical score -
> far different than being there.
>
Let's not forget the fact that many users are behind a firewall. This
also prevents the use of IRC.
Alex
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> The community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
>> method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
>
> Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
> published/ promoted however, does.
No it doesn't. It's exclusionary in that email allows timezone
independent participation, and IMO, reading an IRC chat after the fact
is far different than being there. It's like reading a musical score -
far different than being there.
> Like I stated earlier, I actually
> believe that since we started supporting the logged IRC channel -
> which usually has about half of the active committers and about 15 -
> 30 users online at any given time - that our list traffic got more
> focussed and thus more valuable for following/ accessing the archives.
>
> I'm not arguing email should not be the preferred method of
> communicating, just that IRC is a valuable additional communication
> channel which imho is very suitable to open development.
>
The problem is that decisions do get made there if your not careful...
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
Well, what can I say other that there seem to be different opinions on
the issue. Maybe those different opinions can be summarized like this:
a) IRC is harmful for open development
b) IRC is not harmful for open development per se and can in fact be a
useful additional communication channel *if* used wisely.
;)
A question that remains now, as this has been an 'official' though
vote-less discussion on the incubator list, is whether a project that
utilizes an IRC channel as part of it's communication mix should be
regarded as a project that has some work to do to fit in ASF, or that
the opinions in this discussion should be regarded as non-binding
advices.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Besides voicing a strong +1 to Jim and Geir's comments, I want to add one more:
> 30 users online at any given time - that our list traffic got more
> focussed and thus more valuable for following/ accessing the archives.
Focus may be nice, but it's sometimes counter to innovation. In my
experience people are a lot less willing to go off-topic on IRC
because they feel more like they may be wasting others' time.
Mailing lists, because of their not-immediate nature, have (again in
my experience) less of this barrier to off-topic, less-focused
discussion that nonetheless sometimes leads to the best ideas.
If people (e.g. newcomers to the project) think (even if they have the
wrong perception) that the list is only good for "focused" (i.e.
down-selected by those fortunate enough to have been at the relevant
IRC chat) discussion, you're losing out ideas, discussion, and
ultimately probably contributors.
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> The community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
> method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
Public IRC, free for anyone to join, at a channel that is 'officially'
published/ promoted however, does. Like I stated earlier, I actually
believe that since we started supporting the logged IRC channel -
which usually has about half of the active committers and about 15 -
30 users online at any given time - that our list traffic got more
focussed and thus more valuable for following/ accessing the archives.
I'm not arguing email should not be the preferred method of
communicating, just that IRC is a valuable additional communication
channel which imho is very suitable to open development.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
See my reply to your last post, conversations are OK, but discussions
resulting in proposals can quickly deteriorate into a short circuit
which excludes other participants from the real process, which isn't
about making a boolean decision but about reaching an informed
consensus.
On 15/08/06, Jan Blok <jb...@servoy.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There seems to me a huge difference between doing conversations about
> code/design (with a possible conclusion to post a "formal"
> change-proposal on the mailing list), and making the decision itself.
>
> Jan
>
>
>
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> >Jan Blok wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
> >>between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
> >>design decisions are made on the mailing list?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
> >hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
> >discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
> >
> >A: what do you think?
> >B: Well, like you said before...
> >A : about the contstructor
> >B : no, the other thing
> >A : related to using =?
> >B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
> >suggested....
> >
> >versus the more formal statements people make in email
> >
> >"I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the Properties
> >preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was used in
> >the original file."
> >
> >geir
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
> On 16 Aug 06, at 9:40 AM 16 Aug 06, Dion Gillard wrote:
>
>> You mean like this:
>>
>> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/IRC+Log+Design+Discussion+26+May+2005
>>
>>
>
> That particular discussion had everyone who even vaguely knew what the
> issue at hand was, even so you only know we talked about it because we
> logged it. Also, the use of our IRC has evolved over time just as people
> evolve their communication strategies. Geir's example below is exactly
> what he and I used to do *all* the time except we never posted anything
> to the mailing lists. We designed pretty much every last detail of
> Velocity over IRC and usually it was a private IRC conversation. So
> everyone changes to adjust to what best suits the situation.
It would be interesting to go look back at the vel dev list and test
that assertion. I remember a lot of private chatting throughout the
day, but as that was 6 years ago, I don't remember much. I have trouble
remembering last week sometimes...
gier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 16 Aug 06, at 9:40 AM 16 Aug 06, Dion Gillard wrote:
> You mean like this:
>
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/IRC+Log+Design+Discussion+26
> +May+2005
>
That particular discussion had everyone who even vaguely knew what
the issue at hand was, even so you only know we talked about it
because we logged it. Also, the use of our IRC has evolved over time
just as people evolve their communication strategies. Geir's example
below is exactly what he and I used to do *all* the time except we
never posted anything to the mailing lists. We designed pretty much
every last detail of Velocity over IRC and usually it was a private
IRC conversation. So everyone changes to adjust to what best suits
the situation.
If you look at the Maven lists and how often we post topics for
development discussion you'll often find no one outside the core set
of committers answers any of them. Often times not even the core
committers answer. Then it fades away and folks generally don't go
hunting down the topic in the archives, except for the very few that
have a mail flagging technique. But anyone interested in knowing what
we're doing is here:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/Maven+2.1+Design+Documents
Regardless of whatever else we do those are the items of discussion
and nothing leaves the queue until it is resolved and we don't tackle
any other new issues until a place in the queue frees sometimes pass
in and out of the mailing list and sometimes devs/users leave
comments in the wiki. We then vote on the mailing list, although I
think a little voting app like we use for elections would be better
for record keeping, or a little webapp. So what's makes it easier for
a new person entering the community to get involved? Sifting through
archives or looking at that one page. The one page I would think. If
that page points at email threads (which we're working on), IRC logs
or the Wiki then who cares what the medium is provided it's available
to everyone. If people want to get involved they generally ask and
that's about all they need to be involved.
Bottom line is if you don't include other people then they aren't
going stay around to help and the project will go to pot. Telling
people they can't use IRC for discussions or even making decisions
isn't going to prevent a project from spiraling downward. It's the
attitude of the people involved that will keep a project afloat. I've
adjusted from doing a lot of things myself like writing Velocity or
large chunks of Turbine, the first incarnation of maven, the second
incarnation of maven but it's not IRC discussions that kept others
from being involved or feeling included it was my attitude. My
attitude changed and my general mode of communication changed and
that included how I used IRC. I think it's pointless to hammer on a
point that some technology is going to make or break a project, or
even help or aid a project to be more one way or the other. If the
project is going to be a long term survivor the people involved in
the project will figure it out.
>
> On 8/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jan Blok wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium
>> usage
>> > between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
>> > design decisions are made on the mailing list?
>>
>> Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC,
>> implicitly. It's
>> hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially
>> when the
>> discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
>>
>> A: what do you think?
>> B: Well, like you said before...
>> A : about the contstructor
>> B : no, the other thing
>> A : related to using =?
>> B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
>> suggested....
>>
>> versus the more formal statements people make in email
>>
>> "I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the
>> Properties
>> preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was
>> used in
>> the original file."
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Regards Jan Blok
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
>> >> the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
>> >> real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
>> >> development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
>> >> to the development of the community.
>> >>
>> >>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
> "If you even dream of beating me you'd better wake up and apologize" -
> Muhammad Ali
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Dion Gillard <di...@gmail.com>.
You mean like this:
http://docs.codehaus.org/display/MAVEN/IRC+Log+Design+Discussion+26+May+2005
On 8/16/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
> Jan Blok wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
> > between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
> > design decisions are made on the mailing list?
>
> Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
> hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
> discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
>
> A: what do you think?
> B: Well, like you said before...
> A : about the contstructor
> B : no, the other thing
> A : related to using =?
> B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
> suggested....
>
> versus the more formal statements people make in email
>
> "I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the Properties
> preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was used in
> the original file."
>
> geir
>
>
> >
> > Regards Jan Blok
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> >> I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
> >> the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
> >> real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
> >> development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
> >> to the development of the community.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
http://www.multitask.com.au/people/dion/
"If you even dream of beating me you'd better wake up and apologize" -
Muhammad Ali
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
On 17/08/06, Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think a key question in the "how" category is how to make IRC (or IM
> in general) discussions easily accessible to people "who weren't
> there"
... or who cannot be "there".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: IRC Channel?
Posted by "Gav...." <br...@brightontown.com.au>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jukka Zitting [mailto:jukka.zitting@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 3:29 PM
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
>
> Hi,
>
> On 8/17/06, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If ASF is about people rather than procedures as is regularly stated,
> > a discussion about IRC in open development should be more about 'how'
> > and in the context of individual projects than simply denouncing the
> > technology altogether.
>
> +1
Yes, I also echo Eelco's sentiments, forrest like Wicket has been successful
in using IRC for nearly a year now to thrash through some Jira Issues, code
enhancements and to discuss best ways of doing things etc, ideas get thrown
around. No big decisions on new techniques or direction are decided on IRC
but are put on dev@ for more discussion and resolution there.
I personally have found IRC invaluable in live Q & A to get an answer, try
it out and respond straight away with yep that worked or no it didn't etc.
The lists of course do this in a slower but sure manner also. Forrest also
confirm that the Mail lists are the primary source of communication.
That said, there is an issue on the future of Forrest IRC sessions, as the
usual crew could usually attend, and others not, so we are to discuss a new
approach to using IRC. I hope it does not disappear.
>
> I think a key question in the "how" category is how to make IRC (or IM
> in general) discussions easily accessible to people "who weren't
> there" or who want to go back and check what was discussed. If this
> question is solved, I see no reason not to embrace IM more, but as of
> now I don't see any good solutions around. Plain IRC logs are clearly
> not the answer as pointed out by Geir and others.
Agree, I can not see any automated method to filter out the 'chatter' from
the relevant material to keep. Someone has to fill the role each time to
manually go through the logs and do the filtering. The prettying up
processing and publish to a web page or wiki can be done in many automated
ways when the good stuff remains.
Perhaps then, the looking through of IRC material will be easier to do.
FWIW I prefer IRC logs to Wiki any day.
Gav...
>
> BR,
>
> Jukka Zitting
>
> --
> Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
> Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.0/420 - Release Date: 8/16/2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jukka Zitting <ju...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On 8/17/06, Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If ASF is about people rather than procedures as is regularly stated,
> a discussion about IRC in open development should be more about 'how'
> and in the context of individual projects than simply denouncing the
> technology altogether.
+1
I think a key question in the "how" category is how to make IRC (or IM
in general) discussions easily accessible to people "who weren't
there" or who want to go back and check what was discussed. If this
question is solved, I see no reason not to embrace IM more, but as of
now I don't see any good solutions around. Plain IRC logs are clearly
not the answer as pointed out by Geir and others.
BR,
Jukka Zitting
--
Yukatan - http://yukatan.fi/ - info@yukatan.fi
Software craftsmanship, JCR consulting, and Java development
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 8/15/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
>
>
> <snip/>
> If a individual doesn't like the method the project is communicating
> with then it
> is up to him to convince the rest of the community/project to change.
It's not necessarily a question of 'like'. Even if someone likes IRC, they
may not have access to it from their work environment, or they may not be
able to spend time at their day job chatting about their favourite open
source project.
<snip/>
(I'm going to get flamed here)
> this clinging to email is probably a symptom of a bigger problem. Trust.
> People don't trust other members to make a decision, and always want
> to add their 2c's
> because they are smart people and have their own insights and they
> know what's best.
> and want to feel that they are needed or something.
>
> This consensus-based approach we have adopted is a drag. I don't
> believe we should wait
> 48 hours so everyone has a chance to weigh in.. I'd much rather have
> a quorum based approach
> X members say +1 and it's a done deal.
Maybe it's just me, but that's not the way I see it at all. Absolutely, I
trust the other committers on the projects I work on. But that doesn't mean
I believe that they're always right. I would *much* prefer to have a chance
to express my opinions before a decision is made, than come along "late to
the party" and find myself vetoing something because I strongly believed
that the wrong decision had been made. (Not that I believe I'm always right
either!) And as for our concensus-based approach, well, I see that as a
large part of who we are. Give that up and the ASF isn't the same ASF any
more.
get a better job?
I just did. ;-) And that I don't have day-time access to IRC doesn't make it
a worse job, either. I just have to consider day-job-time to be a non-IRC
"timezone".
--
Martin Cooper
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
On 15/08/06, Jan Blok <jb...@servoy.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
> between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
> design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Because the discussion which results in the proposal is not open to
all of the supposed decision makers. A certain amount of
out-of-channel chatter is inevitable and probably does oil the wheels,
but it can quickly become a problem if a clique forms and starts to
steer the dirction of the project without all of the contributors
having access to all of the discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jan Blok <jb...@servoy.com>.
Hi,
There seems to me a huge difference between doing conversations about
code/design (with a possible conclusion to post a "formal"
change-proposal on the mailing list), and making the decision itself.
Jan
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>Jan Blok wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
>>between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
>>design decisions are made on the mailing list?
>>
>>
>
>Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
>hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
>discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
>
>A: what do you think?
>B: Well, like you said before...
>A : about the contstructor
>B : no, the other thing
>A : related to using =?
>B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
>suggested....
>
>versus the more formal statements people make in email
>
>"I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the Properties
>preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was used in
>the original file."
>
>geir
>
>
>
>
>
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Jason van Zyl wrote:
> On 15 Aug 06, at 12:27 PM 15 Aug 06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jan Blok wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
>>> between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
>>> design decisions are made on the mailing list?
>>
>> Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
>> hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
>> discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
>>
>> A: what do you think?
>> B: Well, like you said before...
>> A : about the contstructor
>> B : no, the other thing
>> A : related to using =?
>> B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
>> suggested....
>>
>> versus the more formal statements people make in email
>>
>> "I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the Properties
>> preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was used in
>> the original file."
>>
>
> That's a sweeping generalization which in many cases is not true.
Of course - it was clearly contrived. And most people don't make single
coherent statements in email as well. But I find it far easier to track
a thread in email.
>
> Email can be just as unclear and people going "Sorry, I don't understand
> what you just said" happens often. In IRC where you can iterate to the
> point of understanding and pastebin examples to get your point across
> works very well.
>
> I don't think the argument can be made that one form of communication
> has a better rate of conveyance. I would say IRC does, you would say
> email does. I think the argument here is one of persons/groups being
> excluded or not which is matter of project members' attitudes about
> inclusion.
It would be interesting to see if such things could be measured with
language analysis, to find "density" or "continuity" of content. I know
that I personally have a rough time reading IRC logs, even just
backscrolling though what my client captures is always far different
than being there in real time.
My biggest problem with IRC is that fact that not everyone can be there.
I understand how people find it more efficient - I actually prefer face
to face or phone... :)
geir
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 15 Aug 06, at 12:27 PM 15 Aug 06, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
>
> Jan Blok wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
>> between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
>> design decisions are made on the mailing list?
>
> Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly.
> It's
> hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially
> when the
> discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
>
> A: what do you think?
> B: Well, like you said before...
> A : about the contstructor
> B : no, the other thing
> A : related to using =?
> B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
> suggested....
>
> versus the more formal statements people make in email
>
> "I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the
> Properties
> preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was
> used in
> the original file."
>
That's a sweeping generalization which in many cases is not true.
Email can be just as unclear and people going "Sorry, I don't
understand what you just said" happens often. In IRC where you can
iterate to the point of understanding and pastebin examples to get
your point across works very well.
I don't think the argument can be made that one form of communication
has a better rate of conveyance. I would say IRC does, you would say
email does. I think the argument here is one of persons/groups being
excluded or not which is matter of project members' attitudes about
inclusion.
Jason.
> geir
>
>
>>
>> Regards Jan Blok
>>
>>
>>
>> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
>>> the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
>>> real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
>>> development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
>>> to the development of the community.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>
> Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
> hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
> discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
>
> A: what do you think?
> B: Well, like you said before...
Or worse, the 'debate' is brought to the list...
A: I'd like to propose that we [...]
B: +1, glad you adopted that change I suggested.
C: +1.
D: like I said before, -0.
E: -1 - I already told you this is wrong.
What a constructive thread :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>.
Jan Blok wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
> between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
> design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Because the reality is that decisions are made on IRC, implicitly. It's
hard to engage in an argument that already happened, especially when the
discussion was very conversational rather than formal :
A: what do you think?
B: Well, like you said before...
A : about the contstructor
B : no, the other thing
A : related to using =?
B : right that it.. it would be better if that was done as Jim
suggested....
versus the more formal statements people make in email
"I'm beginning to agree that ensuring that re-serializing the Properties
preserves the original delimiter ("=" in Jim's example) that was used in
the original file."
geir
>
> Regards Jan Blok
>
>
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
>> the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
>> real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
>> development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
>> to the development of the community.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
As I and other have stated, IRC (and other real-time methods)
have their uses, but that it is too easy for them to
grow and expand beyond what they were originally set to
do.
This is, after all, not some willy-nilly "consideration"
that we just felt made sense. Instead, it's something
which has proven itself as a valuable condition,
time and time again, for the last 10+ years.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Jan Blok wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium
> usage between some community members as long as every one agrees
> code and design decisions are made on the mailing list?
>
> Regards Jan Blok
>
>
>
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
>> the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
>> real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
>> development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
>> to the development of the community.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jan Blok <jb...@servoy.com>.
Hi,
What could be the problem of any real-time communication medium usage
between some community members as long as every one agrees code and
design decisions are made on the mailing list?
Regards Jan Blok
Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
> the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
> real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
> development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
> to the development of the community.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I think one way of looking at this is simply remembering that
the ASF values community over code. Yes, IRC and other
real-time communication methods means "quicker" code
development, etc, but it places, IMO, an undue barrier
to the development of the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Yoav Shapira <yo...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Ian Holsman wrote:
> It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community as
> a whole.
I don't agree with the above at all. The community is more than just
the sum of its members, but that sum is a large part of the community
nonetheless. A lot of times (too many in some projects that I've been
involved with, not just at the ASF) one or two strong individuals
essentially make most of the decisions. This might be fine, depending
on the project, but it doesn't lead to a good community generally.
The less public the medium (and I think we can agree IRC is less
public than archived mailing lists) the more chance there is of this
happening.
> >> actually email isn't being used that much locally either... SMS or
> >> Skype/IM is what I use most when
> >> I want to talk to people.
OK, that's you. In my area (Boston) email is still preferred for
anything that should be preserved, documented, archived, searchable
later, even though we IM and Skype frequently.
> ideas. take this thread for example. If we were talking on the phone
> or on IRC it would
> been settled in 20minutes..
No way. It would go on just as long and it'd be worse because some
people would have to leave the room for personal and/or work and/or
timezone-related reasons, thereby not being able to fully participate,
and feeling bad about it. I know I would.
> (I'm going to get flamed here)
> this clinging to email is probably a symptom of a bigger problem. Trust.
> People don't trust other members to make a decision, and always want
> to add their 2c's
> because they are smart people and have their own insights and they
> know what's best.
> and want to feel that they are needed or something.
You're not going to get flamed, but maybe asked to provide evidence.
When have the people who don't like IRC shown lack of trust in other
members?
> seriously.. I agree with you .. timezones suck.. but I really like
> the approach stock market traders
> do.
> at the end of a shift they call the other timezone and talk and brief
> the others on what is going on,
They get ulcers in their early 20s and there have been a host of
psychological and other studies showing early damage from their overly
stressed behavior. I speak from personal experience, a handful or so
of really good friends who are traders and do as you describe above:
it sucks for them, it sucks for the people in their lives, and it
should serve as an example of what NOT to do at the ASF or any sane
organization.
> >> as long as governance can be maintained I don't see why we (the ASF)
> >> should care.
Would you as a mentor of a proposal like Eelco's be willing to govern
every IRC session and (publicly) admonish / chastize people for making
decisions on IRC or being exclusionary? How are you going to maintain
governance over a project that primarily communicates on IRC or IM or
Skype?
> because we (the collective community) feel that it is the best one.
> and it is one our differentiating factors.
Maybe we feel that IRC is a bad medium, and that could be a
differentiating factor? ;) (Only partially joking).
> > I believe that the use of email is one of the
> > essential charateristics of the Apache Way, it has a long history of
> > sucesses and a proven track record here and in other OS projects.
>
> so have modems.
And CRT monitors, and cell phones that can't receive real-time video,
and other older technologies. They's as applicable (or rather not
applicable) to this argument as modems.
> agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
> better, and produces a better quality/amount.
There I'm more agreeable to your point of view, but it goes back to
the above questions: would you be willling to mentor such a project in
a way that maintains governance to the same standards we have today?
Yoav
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 8/15/06, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
> > It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community
> > as a whole.
> > If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine.
> >
> > If a individual doesn't like the method the project is
> > communicating with then it
> > is up to him to convince the rest of the community/project to change.
>
> No. All Apache development decisions are done on public email lists.
> I don't think the board has ever allowed a project to adopt guidelines
> that differed from that fundamental requirement.
What got lost in this whole thread is the idea that all 'development
decisions' are not equal, and neither are the roles within projects,
whether explicit or implicit distributed.
Let me re-state this very clear: we (at least the Wicket people
involved in this thread) feel IRC is a very good tool for us and our
users for discussing smaller issues like bug-fixes or ideas in their
earliest stages (brainstorming). I say 'feel' but actually I should
say 'experienced', as we started out using only email list, opening up
an IRC channel only after several requests for that were made by our
users (on the list, it's all archived). We have been using that
channel for about a year now, and we found it a useful *addition* to
our mailing lists; the mailing lists are still the leading mechanism
for anything we consider important. If you would look at the IRC logs,
you would commonly see remarks like: 'ok, I think we flashed the basic
idea out, let's write a proposal and discuss further details on the
mailing list', or 'well, this issue is a bit tricky, please send your
question to the list so other users can read about it and it is
properly archived'. It all works fine in practice, really.
If ASF is about people rather than procedures as is regularly stated,
a discussion about IRC in open development should be more about 'how'
and in the context of individual projects than simply denouncing the
technology altogether.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>.
Jason,
Here's the text version:
http://www.awpi.com/Combs/Shaggy/A795.html
I had to look up the word turd :)
http://www.answers.com/turd&r=67
-- dims
On 8/16/06, Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org> wrote:
> On 16 Aug 06, at 2:24 AM 16 Aug 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> >
> >> agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
> >> better,
> >> and produces a better quality/amount.
> >
> > Hmm, IIRC, we already experimented on that issue and discovered the
> > result.
> > I think it was before your time, but APR was mostly "designed" on IRC
> > and various in-person meetings. I only have one thing to say about
> > that:
> >
> > http://www.utahphillips.org/stuff/mooseturdpie.mp3
> >
>
> What were the problems you encountered?
>
> > ....Roy
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service Developers)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 16 Aug 06, at 2:24 AM 16 Aug 06, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
>> agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
>> better,
>> and produces a better quality/amount.
>
> Hmm, IIRC, we already experimented on that issue and discovered the
> result.
> I think it was before your time, but APR was mostly "designed" on IRC
> and various in-person meetings. I only have one thing to say about
> that:
>
> http://www.utahphillips.org/stuff/mooseturdpie.mp3
>
What were the problems you encountered?
> ....Roy
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:38 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
> It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community
> as a whole.
> If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine.
>
> If a individual doesn't like the method the project is
> communicating with then it
> is up to him to convince the rest of the community/project to change.
No. All Apache development decisions are done on public email lists.
I don't think the board has ever allowed a project to adopt guidelines
that differed from that fundamental requirement.
> probably.. i tend to exaggerate. but email is a *very* hard medium
> to communicate
> ideas. take this thread for example. If we were talking on the
> phone or on IRC it would
> been settled in 20minutes.. but now there are 20 messages over 4
> days, and people like
> me jumping into the middle of it, using HTML mail and all that.
How can it be "settled" in 20 minutes when less than 1/3 of the group
is on-line? It is "settled" only in the minds of the clique that you
are
aware of at that time, which is precisely why it is not allowed as a
decision-making method at Apache.
Email communication is hard -- it forces most people to think before
they
write a lot of mindless drivel, or at least think before they press the
send button on the drivel they wrote. IRC does not have that barrier,
true, but that shows both in the quantity of drivel and the quality
of the
decisions made.
I know of a solution that will bridge the gap, but it is still a cloaked
start-up right now -- I'll send more info on that solution when there is
something that we can use.
Note that the fact that we use email to make project-level decisions
doesn't mean we *do* everything by sending email messages and then
waiting for responses. The vast amount of real work is simply done
first and communicated later, prototyped/tested and then proposed as
a complete concept, or discussed vaguely at some point in the past and
then implemented by someone else off-line. I've seen a lot of
discussions where people lead off with an open-ended question and
then wait for a response, but that is usually for long-term issues or
bike-shed topics that can't be "settled" quickly anyway.
> agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
> better,
> and produces a better quality/amount.
Hmm, IIRC, we already experimented on that issue and discovered the
result.
I think it was before your time, but APR was mostly "designed" on IRC
and various in-person meetings. I only have one thing to say about
that:
http://www.utahphillips.org/stuff/mooseturdpie.mp3
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net>.
On 15/08/2006, at 7:02 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
> On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
> <snip/>
>
> Obvioulsy we aren't going to agree about this, which is fine, but I'd
> still like to pick up on a couple of points that you raised;
>
>> we are talking about stopping people using what they are comfortable
>> with just
>> because we have a few people who don't like it. (who aren't even
>> directly involved
>> in the project). Thats exclusionary to me.
>
> With this principle where would you draw the line? Should we then be
> looking at extending the channels of communication which projects use
> to include many more forms of communication? What about people who
> prefer IM or VOIP or web forums or usenet, do you think we should be
> considering ways in which to include any reasonable and popular means
> of communication or are your points specifically aimed at IRC?
It isn't the individuals who make the decision, but the community as
a whole.
If they feel more comfortable using X to communicate then fine.
If a individual doesn't like the method the project is communicating
with then it
is up to him to convince the rest of the community/project to change.
>
> <snipped more good stuff/>
>
>> because it isn't. just like a dial-up modem, while perfectly fit for
>> the purpose is no longer used.
>> actually email isn't being used that much locally either... SMS or
>> Skype/IM is what I use most when
>> I want to talk to people.
>
> I think you may be extrapolating your personal circumstances too far.
> No doubt email is becoming less popular, in no small part as a
> consequence of spam and the fact that the people who should be
> concentrating on evolving the technology to match our evolving
> sophistication are focusing a significant part of their attention on
> spam prevention.
probably.. i tend to exaggerate. but email is a *very* hard medium to
communicate
ideas. take this thread for example. If we were talking on the phone
or on IRC it would
been settled in 20minutes.. but now there are 20 messages over 4
days, and people like
me jumping into the middle of it, using HTML mail and all that.
(I'm going to get flamed here)
this clinging to email is probably a symptom of a bigger problem. Trust.
People don't trust other members to make a decision, and always want
to add their 2c's
because they are smart people and have their own insights and they
know what's best.
and want to feel that they are needed or something.
This consensus-based approach we have adopted is a drag. I don't
believe we should wait
48 hours so everyone has a chance to weigh in.. I'd much rather have
a quorum based approach
X members say +1 and it's a done deal.
maybe thats why I hate email so much, and prefer a much 'speedier'
approach.. it forces people
to give up a bit of control, and put it into the hands of their
fellow members.
> On the other hand people do need to communicate across timezones, and
> in a diverse group any instant communication will exclude people who
> cannot participate in real time. Many more are prevented from access
> to instant communication by circumstances, for example corporate
> firewalls etc. In my circumstances email is very much still the major
> form of electronic communication in day to day use.
get a better job? Does google have a office in your location .. I'm
sure it will in 3 months.
seriously.. I agree with you .. timezones suck.. but I really like
the approach stock market traders
do.
at the end of a shift they call the other timezone and talk and brief
the others on what is going on,
so the information moves forward. they also have delegated areas of
responsibility. so they all work
on the same project, but are focused on different areas inside of it.
> <snip>
>
>>
>> as long as governance can be maintained I don't see why we (the ASF)
>> should care.
>
> Well this is logical but you could say the same about any of our
> activities or policies,
> why do we defend our licence when we could use
> any one of many other fine open source licences?
because we (the collective community) feel that it is the best one.
and it is one our differentiating factors.
I believe people choose the project, and the license is
inconsequential. I would have joined HTTP if it were GPL
for example.. others feel much more strongly than I do.
> Why do we choose to
> allow people only to contribute as individuals when there is
> apparently, plenty of corporations who would like explicitly to
> provide paid contributors?
good question.
we should acknowledge the different circumstances our members are in.
maybe as we evolve corporations will be treated as equals...
different topic though.
> Why have any particular structure or
> goals?
> Surely we care because we are commited to the continued sucess
> of the ASF,
everyone agrees.
> and we resist changing the things which demonstrably work
> because they risk that.
Status Quo vs Change for change sake.. the eternal choice.
> I believe that the use of email is one of the
> essential charateristics of the Apache Way, it has a long history of
> sucesses and a proven track record here and in other OS projects.
so have modems.
> Changing the way we communicate will necessarily change the nature of
> the ASF, the way we operate, and the way we are percieved, and
> probably change the nature, the amount and the quality of our output.
agreed... without experimentation we won't know if IRC or VOIP is
better,
and produces a better quality/amount.
> Without evidence (not opinion and speculation) that these changes will
> be beneficial rather than harmful I think that the risks are too
> great. We should wish to maintain the factors which have contributed
> to the success of the ASF, in this case that factor is inclusivity.
Status Quo vs Change for change sake.
you need to experiment with different things, diversity is a key
factor for innovation (imho)
and innovation drives the ASF.
>
> d.
>
--Ian
--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net
http://VC-chat.com It's what the VC's talk about
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
<snip/>
Obvioulsy we aren't going to agree about this, which is fine, but I'd
still like to pick up on a couple of points that you raised;
> we are talking about stopping people using what they are comfortable
> with just
> because we have a few people who don't like it. (who aren't even
> directly involved
> in the project). Thats exclusionary to me.
With this principle where would you draw the line? Should we then be
looking at extending the channels of communication which projects use
to include many more forms of communication? What about people who
prefer IM or VOIP or web forums or usenet, do you think we should be
considering ways in which to include any reasonable and popular means
of communication or are your points specifically aimed at IRC?
<snipped more good stuff/>
> because it isn't. just like a dial-up modem, while perfectly fit for
> the purpose is no longer used.
> actually email isn't being used that much locally either... SMS or
> Skype/IM is what I use most when
> I want to talk to people.
I think you may be extrapolating your personal circumstances too far.
No doubt email is becoming less popular, in no small part as a
consequence of spam and the fact that the people who should be
concentrating on evolving the technology to match our evolving
sophistication are focusing a significant part of their attention on
spam prevention.
On the other hand people do need to communicate across timezones, and
in a diverse group any instant communication will exclude people who
cannot participate in real time. Many more are prevented from access
to instant communication by circumstances, for example corporate
firewalls etc. In my circumstances email is very much still the major
form of electronic communication in day to day use.
> >
> > There is no reason why people can't carry on other forms of
> > communication, but in order to keep the community alive we should want
> > to include in the debate everyone who has something to contribute.
> >
> we disagree.
> the community will just grow in a different direction, with other
> people joining it via IRC
> sure some people might be disadvantaged by this, but others will be
> advantaged.
I'm not proposing that we compel people not to use other technology,
merely that we don't sanction it and we try to encourage people to
keep dev and management discussions on dev and pmc lists. Instant
communication is great for having private chat with people who you are
also having a public discussion with, as long as you don't short
circuit the topic.
You say that you don't think we should be concerned if people can't
participate, and that your circumstances meant that you can miss whole
discussions. How would it make you feel if you missed *every*
discussion and were only ever presented with high level decisions to
ratify after the fact?
If people discuss things on IRC and then summarise on a dev list then
experience tells us that they will tend to defend the consensus
reached elsewhere should anyone should question their decision on the
mailing list. Whereas I believe that if the discussion takes place on
the mailinglist then everyone is participating as equals and as
individuals, and no specific outcome is predicted in advance of the
debate.
>
> as long as governance can be maintained I don't see why we (the ASF)
> should care.
Well this is logical but you could say the same about any of our
activities or policies, why do we defend our licence when we could use
any one of many other fine open source licences? Why do we choose to
allow people only to contribute as individuals when there is
apparently, plenty of corporations who would like explicitly to
provide paid contributors? Why have any particular structure or
goals? Surely we care because we are commited to the continued sucess
of the ASF, and we resist changing the things which demonstrably work
because they risk that. I believe that the use of email is one of the
essential charateristics of the Apache Way, it has a long history of
sucesses and a proven track record here and in other OS projects.
Changing the way we communicate will necessarily change the nature of
the ASF, the way we operate, and the way we are percieved, and
probably change the nature, the amount and the quality of our output.
Without evidence (not opinion and speculation) that these changes will
be beneficial rather than harmful I think that the risks are too
great. We should wish to maintain the factors which have contributed
to the success of the ASF, in this case that factor is inclusivity.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net>.
On 15/08/2006, at 4:16 PM, Danny Angus wrote:
> On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
>> chain either. if a member
>> can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
>> timezone, we should be OK with that too.
>> not every member has to be able to participate in a project. as long
>> as the project is healthy, I'm not
>> sure what the problem is.
>
> Ian this attitude disturbs me, don't make the mistake of thinking that
> the ASF is big enough to be able to afford to start excluding
> valuable people and/or groups on the grounds of technology alone.
It's ok to be disturbed. While you see it as being exclusionary, I
think of
it as moving with the times. IRC is a more interactive method of
communication
and has a faster feedback mechanism than email does, and from my
experiences
is easier to express yourself on (leading to less misunderstandings)
we are talking about stopping people using what they are comfortable
with just
because we have a few people who don't like it. (who aren't even
directly involved
in the project). Thats exclusionary to me.
> Start making it harder, or more complicated, for people to participate
> and they *will* leave.
my point.. IRC is what they want to use.
>
> I don't see why email, as the lowest common denominator, is not
> perfectly fit for the purpose.
because it isn't. just like a dial-up modem, while perfectly fit for
the purpose is no longer used.
actually email isn't being used that much locally either... SMS or
Skype/IM is what I use most when
I want to talk to people.
>
> There is no reason why people can't carry on other forms of
> communication, but in order to keep the community alive we should want
> to include in the debate everyone who has something to contribute.
>
we disagree.
the community will just grow in a different direction, with other
people joining it via IRC
sure some people might be disadvantaged by this, but others will be
advantaged.
as long as governance can be maintained I don't see why we (the ASF)
should care.
--Ian
>
> d.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net
http://med-chatter.com/ it's about the medicine
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@gmail.com>.
On 15/08/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
> I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
> chain either. if a member
> can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
> timezone, we should be OK with that too.
> not every member has to be able to participate in a project. as long
> as the project is healthy, I'm not
> sure what the problem is.
Ian this attitude disturbs me, don't make the mistake of thinking that
the ASF is big enough to be able to afford to start excluding
valuable people and/or groups on the grounds of technology alone.
Start making it harder, or more complicated, for people to participate
and they *will* leave.
I don't see why email, as the lowest common denominator, is not
perfectly fit for the purpose.
There is no reason why people can't carry on other forms of
communication, but in order to keep the community alive we should want
to include in the debate everyone who has something to contribute.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
+1 with these statement.
Finally one that really makes sense in my eyes
johan
On 8/15/06, Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net> wrote:
>
>
> you can either acknowledge that some people prefer to use IRC
> to communicate, and accept that while it isn't the best medium, or
> the one
> you would choose, it is the one that group prefers.
>
> OR
>
> you can try to stifle their choice, and force them to use something
> which
> isn't natural to them (in this case a mailing list), in which case
> they will just think
> of the ASF as a bunch of old timers who like red-tape. (and leave)
>
> I personally would prefer an established process for IRC be developed so
> groups can use it. maybe getting one of the participants to blog
> about what happened might work.
> (because like or not, they are going to use it).
>
> As for the time difference.. poppycock. I'm probably one of the most
> excluded
> people here timezone wise, and mailing lists can be just as bad, with
> entire conversations
> started and ended while I sleep. (even board meetings are set up at
> 2AM my time)
>
> I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
> chain either. if a member
> can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
> timezone, we should be OK with that too.
> not every member has to be able to participate in a project. as long
> as the project is healthy, I'm not
> sure what the problem is.
>
> --Ian
>
>
> On 15/08/2006, at 1:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > I am finding it somewhat unsettling that there is an increase
> > in the amount of off-list "development" being done (via IRC)
> > as well as a decreased awareness of WHY Email is the preferred
> > method.
> >
> > Too many times I see things like "Oh, we discuss things on
> > IRC and then bring it back to the list" as if the list was
> > simply a "dropping ground" for ideas, instead of the place
> > where they are discussed.
> >
> > One also needs to recall that community building can be
> > done *after the fact*, that is, not in real-time. The
> > community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
> > method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
>
> --
> Ian Holsman
> Ian@Holsman.net
> http://med-chatter.com/ it's about the medicine
>
>
>
>
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
On Aug 15, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Ian Holsman wrote:
>
> I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
> chain either. if a member
> can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
> timezone, we should be OK with that too.
> not every member has to be able to participate in a project. as
> long as the project is healthy, I'm not
> sure what the problem is.
>
How does that foster a growing, healthy community?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Ian Holsman <li...@holsman.net>.
you can either acknowledge that some people prefer to use IRC
to communicate, and accept that while it isn't the best medium, or
the one
you would choose, it is the one that group prefers.
OR
you can try to stifle their choice, and force them to use something
which
isn't natural to them (in this case a mailing list), in which case
they will just think
of the ASF as a bunch of old timers who like red-tape. (and leave)
I personally would prefer an established process for IRC be developed so
groups can use it. maybe getting one of the participants to blog
about what happened might work.
(because like or not, they are going to use it).
As for the time difference.. poppycock. I'm probably one of the most
excluded
people here timezone wise, and mailing lists can be just as bad, with
entire conversations
started and ended while I sleep. (even board meetings are set up at
2AM my time)
I don't think we (the ASF) need to support the weakest link of the
chain either. if a member
can't access a project due to limitations of corporate policy or
timezone, we should be OK with that too.
not every member has to be able to participate in a project. as long
as the project is healthy, I'm not
sure what the problem is.
--Ian
On 15/08/2006, at 1:53 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> I am finding it somewhat unsettling that there is an increase
> in the amount of off-list "development" being done (via IRC)
> as well as a decreased awareness of WHY Email is the preferred
> method.
>
> Too many times I see things like "Oh, we discuss things on
> IRC and then bring it back to the list" as if the list was
> simply a "dropping ground" for ideas, instead of the place
> where they are discussed.
>
> One also needs to recall that community building can be
> done *after the fact*, that is, not in real-time. The
> community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
> method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
--
Ian Holsman
Ian@Holsman.net
http://med-chatter.com/ it's about the medicine
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>.
I am finding it somewhat unsettling that there is an increase
in the amount of off-list "development" being done (via IRC)
as well as a decreased awareness of WHY Email is the preferred
method.
Too many times I see things like "Oh, we discuss things on
IRC and then bring it back to the list" as if the list was
simply a "dropping ground" for ideas, instead of the place
where they are discussed.
One also needs to recall that community building can be
done *after the fact*, that is, not in real-time. The
community learns about each other in a shared, non-exclusionary
method. Private Email/IM/IRC does NOT foster that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
+1. For most of it anyway...
...I'll say that 'design a set of recommendations beyond "THOU SHALT NOT"'
doesn't seem that sensible to me. There is a huge assortment of recommendations
by a lot of people already; in many cases I feel like adding more of them, or
more complex ones that are different from "use your own judgement and think
these things through and apply some of the basic principles such a meritocracy
and consensus-based working", will just be counter-productive.
Also, don't discount shared group identity. It can be a large part of what binds
a community together. In stefano's agora, look for the overlaps between the node
clusters and the circles :)
LSD
On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 09:45:29AM -0700, Henri Yandell wrote:
> On 8/9/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> >Craig L Russell wrote:
> >> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis) as
> >> an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't like IRC
> >> so much because it is not available to those of us who because of time
> >> zone or other reasons can't attend.
> >
> >No - mostly because IRC CANNOT BE USED to make project decisions.
>
> Which is a shame, because the biggest advantage of IRC is nothing to
> do with the projects and decisions and everything to do with
> community. My belief (though I'd be stunned if it was a novel belief)
> is that communities are founded on the personal relationships between
> people and not the community as a whole. The core of the project is
> less the individuals at the core and more the relationships between
> those individuals at the core; and their subsequent relationships with
> other people in the community. This is the latticework on which the
> public community sits. A community is weaker if it lacks these private
> strengths.
>
> IRC, and to a greater extent private email/IM, are an order of
> magnitude more powerful for building that latticework than mailing
> lists are. Even with the necessary evil of timezones - which some
> people seem to solve by being on IRC 24/7.
>
> >It's lovely for beating down a problem, kicking around ideas, but those
> >ideas MUST COME BACK TO dev@. Decisions themselves must be made on dev@.
>
> I think this is an oversimplification. We have projects who have
> multiple mailing lists, those mailing lists do not constitute the
> entire community, or the entire pmc. Decisions get made on them every
> day. We also have people's minds, in which decisions are made without
> their being made in front of anyone else.
>
> We have private email and IM, in which decisions also get made (or is
> the ASF going to ban pair programming? :) ).
>
> The issue isn't one of decisions being made - it's of big decisions
> being made. This is going to happen in official meetings - much like
> the board meeting. The solution is to have minutes to such things -
> and a concise summary. It's the same as the monthly board meeting on
> the phone. Someone would chair the meeting, it would be announced on
> the dev@ list. I'm sure we can design a set of recommendations for irc
> channels that would be better than a general "THOU SHALT NOT".
>
> >It's the responsibility of the project participants to grab any useful
> >log thread, forward it on to the dev@ list to get people thinking and
> >voting.
>
> And yet I've heard so many of the experienced ASF people, and read in
> the books and oscon sessions on management by the SVN guys that
> consensus is far more important than voting. I might be being pedantic
> on this one :) The important part is that major decisions are put
> before the whole community before they go into effect. Minor decisions
> are handled either by no one complaining or by sending out an email of
> intent.
>
> >Automatically capturing IRC logs undermines this responsibility and harms
> >the project (for exactly the reasons you point out above).
>
> Being able to turn on and off an IRC logger for meetings etc is a good
> thing, though my understanding is that most IRC clients can do it so
> the meeting chair just needs to make sure things are being logged. I
> know a lot of people don't like the idea of automatic logging for IRC,
> especially if it's not known that you're being logged (#maven is
> logged?!? :) ).
>
> Hen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Henri Yandell <fl...@gmail.com>.
On 8/9/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
> > Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis) as
> > an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't like IRC
> > so much because it is not available to those of us who because of time
> > zone or other reasons can't attend.
>
> No - mostly because IRC CANNOT BE USED to make project decisions.
Which is a shame, because the biggest advantage of IRC is nothing to
do with the projects and decisions and everything to do with
community. My belief (though I'd be stunned if it was a novel belief)
is that communities are founded on the personal relationships between
people and not the community as a whole. The core of the project is
less the individuals at the core and more the relationships between
those individuals at the core; and their subsequent relationships with
other people in the community. This is the latticework on which the
public community sits. A community is weaker if it lacks these private
strengths.
IRC, and to a greater extent private email/IM, are an order of
magnitude more powerful for building that latticework than mailing
lists are. Even with the necessary evil of timezones - which some
people seem to solve by being on IRC 24/7.
> It's lovely for beating down a problem, kicking around ideas, but those
> ideas MUST COME BACK TO dev@. Decisions themselves must be made on dev@.
I think this is an oversimplification. We have projects who have
multiple mailing lists, those mailing lists do not constitute the
entire community, or the entire pmc. Decisions get made on them every
day. We also have people's minds, in which decisions are made without
their being made in front of anyone else.
We have private email and IM, in which decisions also get made (or is
the ASF going to ban pair programming? :) ).
The issue isn't one of decisions being made - it's of big decisions
being made. This is going to happen in official meetings - much like
the board meeting. The solution is to have minutes to such things -
and a concise summary. It's the same as the monthly board meeting on
the phone. Someone would chair the meeting, it would be announced on
the dev@ list. I'm sure we can design a set of recommendations for irc
channels that would be better than a general "THOU SHALT NOT".
> It's the responsibility of the project participants to grab any useful
> log thread, forward it on to the dev@ list to get people thinking and
> voting.
And yet I've heard so many of the experienced ASF people, and read in
the books and oscon sessions on management by the SVN guys that
consensus is far more important than voting. I might be being pedantic
on this one :) The important part is that major decisions are put
before the whole community before they go into effect. Minor decisions
are handled either by no one complaining or by sending out an email of
intent.
> Automatically capturing IRC logs undermines this responsibility and harms
> the project (for exactly the reasons you point out above).
Being able to turn on and off an IRC logger for meetings etc is a good
thing, though my understanding is that most IRC clients can do it so
the meeting chair just needs to make sure things are being logged. I
know a lot of people don't like the idea of automatic logging for IRC,
especially if it's not known that you're being logged (#maven is
logged?!? :) ).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Hi,
On Aug 9, 2006, at 6:06 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some
>> basis) as
>> an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
>> like IRC
>> so much because it is not available to those of us who because of
>> time
>> zone or other reasons can't attend.
>
> No - mostly because IRC CANNOT BE USED to make project decisions.
I understand and agree.
>
> It's lovely for beating down a problem, kicking around ideas, but
> those
> ideas MUST COME BACK TO dev@. Decisions themselves must be made on
> dev@.
Sure, but lots of discussion on dev@ doesn't result in a decision
either.
>
> It's the responsibility of the project participants to grab any useful
> log thread, forward it on to the dev@ list to get people thinking and
> voting.
I don't think that even 5% of the dev@ discussion is decision-making,
voting, or anything more than chat.
>
> Automatically capturing IRC logs undermines this responsibility and
> harms
> the project (for exactly the reasons you point out above).
I'm not sure what part of capturing IRC logs undermines anything.
Perhaps what I'm suggesting is that IRC can be more useful if there
were some tool that the participants could use to summarize the
discussion. Given that everyone knows that IRC is not a decision-
making tool but a communications tool.
If the state of the art is that someone on IRC has to take
responsibility to log the chat and people by nature are lazy
(Malthus, anyone?) it's more likely than not that IRC chats won't be
logged. Wicket excluded. How do they do this?
Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>.
On 9 Aug 06, at 9:06 PM 9 Aug 06, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Craig L Russell wrote:
>> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some
>> basis) as
>> an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
>> like IRC
>> so much because it is not available to those of us who because of
>> time
>> zone or other reasons can't attend.
>
> No - mostly because IRC CANNOT BE USED to make project decisions.
>
> It's lovely for beating down a problem, kicking around ideas, but
> those
> ideas MUST COME BACK TO dev@. Decisions themselves must be made on
> dev@.
>
> It's the responsibility of the project participants to grab any useful
> log thread, forward it on to the dev@ list to get people thinking and
> voting.
>
> Automatically capturing IRC logs undermines this responsibility and
> harms
> the project (for exactly the reasons you point out above).
>
How does automatically capturing the logs undermine anything. It is
convenient to point at threads of discussion in IRC and even though
summaries can be provided there's nothing like reading the source
material. Just as we often summarize threads on dev@maven, it's still
nice to go back to the archives and read over the messages.
We keep our messages here:
http://dev.rectang.com/logs/codehaus/
And I think they are pretty handy and provide the source material for
any summaries. Good evidence of how this works in practice is #cxf
where the XFire and Celtix folks have been chatting about ideas and
then you see the summary on the mailing list. If you want to go see
the IRC log in question you can:
http://dev.rectang.com/logs/codehaus/%23cxf/20060809.html
I think accountability is actually promoted by logging the channel
because if people notice the logs continually growing with no
corresponding chatter on the mailing lists then you can identify a
problem. If you the channels aren't logged you're never going to know
and it probably wouldn't be because a group intentionally trying to
undermine the standard channels of communication, it would probably
just be habit. You could point at the log and give a gentle nudge to
push the discussion to the mailing list.
I personally don't see any downside to logging the channels.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Craig L Russell wrote:
> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis) as
> an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't like IRC
> so much because it is not available to those of us who because of time
> zone or other reasons can't attend.
No - mostly because IRC CANNOT BE USED to make project decisions.
It's lovely for beating down a problem, kicking around ideas, but those
ideas MUST COME BACK TO dev@. Decisions themselves must be made on dev@.
It's the responsibility of the project participants to grab any useful
log thread, forward it on to the dev@ list to get people thinking and
voting.
Automatically capturing IRC logs undermines this responsibility and harms
the project (for exactly the reasons you point out above).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> Oh, please. We've had a fraction of the outages experienced by either of
> them, and if I take into account the number of times I have had network
> splits, much less been unable to participate in real-time, on Freenode,
> compared to the nicely asynchronous nature of e-mail, it isn't even a close
> comparison.
Yeah, I had netsplits on freenode too, and the outages of Apache that
I remember were mostly problems with the site and the download area
which lasted for about a day. But the problems on SF were pretty
severe, sometimes resulting in not getting any traffic for five days
or more. When it gets to that point, it really gets in the way of
operating the project. Apache has a much better track record in this I
believe.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
>>>> Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
>>>> SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
>>>> Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
>>> We don't use SF infrastructure.
>> But ASF has had infrastructure outages the last year, just like
>> codehaus and probably any other provider had.
>
> Oh, please. We've had a fraction of the outages experienced by either of
> them, and if I take into account the number of times I have had network
> splits, much less been unable to participate in real-time, on Freenode,
> compared to the nicely asynchronous nature of e-mail, it isn't even a close
> comparison.
++1 - I think this explains the thought-process of some folks coming -into-
the ASF but it sure should be revised by the time they and their projects
graduate incubation :)
It should be clear to everyone that IRC isn't a substitute for email dialog
by now, but that it can be a debugging/troubleshooting/kick the can sort of
forum for generating ideas. But ideas evolve on list not offlist.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>
> Hmm, IIRC, we already experimented on that issue and discovered the result.
> I think it was before your time, but APR was mostly "designed" on IRC
> and various in-person meetings. I only have one thing to say about that:
>
> http://www.utahphillips.org/stuff/mooseturdpie.mp3
Well, either we are speaking of pre-apr apache-apr (before my time and long
ago scuttled) or...
I trust Roy is confusing the fact that this was mostly pioneered by just a
few individuals working solo which steered the direction by 'showing us code',
and only occasionally rising to float design ideas/alternatives or explode
into debates over the 'one right way'. This resulted in the ASF's longest
design debate thread, spelled out at great length on list, which then
resulted in an open meeting in SF to let them duke it out in realtime on the
whiteboard (markers at 20 paces :) It was a very productive exercise which
eliminated *the* key obstacle to implementing filters in httpd. That's the
only f2f I can think of in APR history which resulted in a design choice
being considered and 'announced' to the list rather than design ideas being
floated to the list. But the entire meeting was an exercise in better
communicating what wasn't fitting into the form of email and had degenerated
into a "my idea your idea" diatribe.
But Roy speaks for most of the APR project participants...
"It's good though."
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: IRC Channel?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > > Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
> > > SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
> > > Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
> > We don't use SF infrastructure.
> But ASF has had infrastructure outages the last year, just like
> codehaus and probably any other provider had.
Oh, please. We've had a fraction of the outages experienced by either of
them, and if I take into account the number of times I have had network
splits, much less been unable to participate in real-time, on Freenode,
compared to the nicely asynchronous nature of e-mail, it isn't even a close
comparison.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> > Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
> > SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
> > Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
>
> We don't use SF infrastructure.
>
> --- Noel
But ASF has had infrastructure outages the last year, just like
codehaus and probably any other provider had. The example Gwyn gave
was to the point, as recurring problems with the mailing lists is one
of the main reasons why we considering an alternative to sourceforge.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
RE: IRC Channel?
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Gwyn Evans wrote:
> Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> > IRC BTW is very flaky if you don't have good connection (as most people
> > at AC currently experience). Mail is much better for that because it is
> > not as volatile as IRC.
> Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
> SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
> Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
We don't use SF infrastructure.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Gwyn Evans <gw...@gmail.com>.
On 16/08/06, Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de> wrote:
> Gee, now here is a sensitive subject. :-)
>
> IRC BTW is very flaky if you don't have good connection (as most people
> at AC currently experience). Mail is much better for that because it is
> not as volatile as IRC.
Hmm, that's not universally true though - Over the last year or so,
SF mailing lists have have various /prolonged/ outages whereas
Freenode IRC has not (as far as I know).
> IRC is a not a good
> thing if you want to have a community discuss decisions unless all
> developers are in the same time zone (and not even then).
Strictly, "online at the same moment" rather than "in the same time zone".
/Gwyn
--
Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! - http://wicketframework.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Henning Schmiedehausen <hp...@intermeta.de>.
Gee, now here is a sensitive subject. :-)
IRC BTW is very flaky if you don't have good connection (as most people
at AC currently experience). Mail is much better for that because it is
not as volatile as IRC.
Aside from that I do agree with most things that wrowe wrote. I know of
at least one project in Jakarta where developers tried to "move
decisions to IRC" and almost killed the project. IRC is a not a good
thing if you want to have a community discuss decisions unless all
developers are in the same time zone (and not even then).
Best regards
Henning
Craig L Russell schrieb:
> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis) as
> an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't like IRC
> so much because it is not available to those of us who because of time
> zone or other reasons can't attend.
>
> If it's added to an Apache archive, it is searchable and immediately
> available to search engines.
>
> Surely Web 2.0 has solved this simple issue!
>
> ?
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:57 AM
>>> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
>>>
>>> I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
>>> have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
>>> no objections for the channel being there.
>>
>> Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's
>> easier for
>> real-time interaction as well.
>>
>> As another idea, we could try to do a developer Skype chat or
>> something. I
>> think the Tapestry folks did it once and it sounded like kind of a neat
>> idea. I know my interaction with just about everyone here has been email
>> only.
>>
>> --Kevin
>>
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> i think in general it works out well. we formulate and refine ideas on irc
> for a couple of hours and then post a summary to the devel list. after a few
> hours of real time communication the idea is usually flashed out enough to
> be a good base for a longer/slower-paced discussion on the list.
I second that. Usually about half of the developers are on the chat
channel. Furthermore, we don't have to officially (via votes/ list)
agree on every little issue. For things like fixing smaller bugs,
working on new components, brainstorming etc, IRC works really well.
In the year or so we are using it we definitively sped up our
development pace, are better able to support our users, and imo got a
more community feel in general. And like Igor said, it reduces the
noise on the mailing lists as we generally fleshed out our ideas/
proposals better before sending them in.
Did that sound like I am trying to sell something? ;)
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> A regularly scheduled IRC chat does work but if IRC is a key part of
> day-to-day execution then IMO that's a problem from the global
> perspective. Of course YMMV.
Just depends on the people. Many people on the Wicket channel use
Wicket for their day jobs and work on the OSS part in the evenings.
The team consists of people from the US and from different countries
(and time zones) in Europe, and we have regular users as far as New
Zealand, so I could safely say we cover all time zones :).
It's not that IRC has that much of an official status though. For the
real decision making we use mailing lists. But for the daily stuff,
IRC has been great.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Sanjiva Weerawarana <sa...@opensource.lk>.
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 18:12 -0700, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> in wicket we use irc quiete a lot. we dont post all transcripts to the list
> because in general they are too noisy to be of any use to anyone. we do have
> them available for browsing on the web [1] though. we also have a search
> engine that indexes our mailing list, wiki, irc logs, and a few select
> websites to give a single point entry into all those resources [2].
The problem is one of timezones .. IRC works if most of the people are
in the same/similar TZ. If you want people from the other side of the
world to become part of the project then please don't use IRC all the
time; its a PITA to read logs and have to deal with stuff thru that.
A regularly scheduled IRC chat does work but if IRC is a key part of
day-to-day execution then IMO that's a problem from the global
perspective. Of course YMMV.
Sanjiva.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
in wicket we use irc quiete a lot. we dont post all transcripts to the list
because in general they are too noisy to be of any use to anyone. we do have
them available for browsing on the web [1] though. we also have a search
engine that indexes our mailing list, wiki, irc logs, and a few select
websites to give a single point entry into all those resources [2].
i think in general it works out well. we formulate and refine ideas on irc
for a couple of hours and then post a summary to the devel list. after a few
hours of real time communication the idea is usually flashed out enough to
be a good base for a longer/slower-paced discussion on the list.
so i think irc is a valuable tool even though not everyone can get into the
conversation at the same time.
[1] http://ginandtonic.org/wicket
[2] http://woogle.billen.dk/search
-Igor
On 8/9/06, Craig L Russell <Cr...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis)
> as an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
> like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
> because of time zone or other reasons can't attend.
>
> If it's added to an Apache archive, it is searchable and immediately
> available to search engines.
>
> Surely Web 2.0 has solved this simple issue!
>
> ?
>
> Craig
>
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:57 AM
> >> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
> >>
> >> I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
> >> have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
> >> no objections for the channel being there.
> >
> > Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's
> > easier for
> > real-time interaction as well.
> >
> > As another idea, we could try to do a developer Skype chat or
> > something. I
> > think the Tapestry folks did it once and it sounded like kind of a
> > neat
> > idea. I know my interaction with just about everyone here has been
> > email
> > only.
> >
> > --
> > Kevin
> >
>
> Craig Russell
> Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
> 408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
> P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
>
>
>
>
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
On 8/10/06, Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Leo Simons wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:03:52PM -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
> >
> >> Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
> >> like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
> >> because of time zone or other reasons can't attend.
> >>
> >
> > Yup. And reading IRC archives sucks, so asynchronous communication is
> > much harder :)
> >
> +1. It is much easier to read and comprehend a mail thread rather than
> to follow a noisy IRC chat log.
that could all be the case. But for quick discussions about stuff, how to do
it
what possible solutions could be is much much faster through IRC.
Because of the direct feedback that by multiply people.
For example i use in most of my work Instant Messaging much more for
discussing problems
or what ever then do that throug email. Because of the direct connection and
feedback.
johan
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Samisa Abeysinghe <sa...@gmail.com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:03:52PM -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
>> Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
>> like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
>> because of time zone or other reasons can't attend.
>>
>
> Yup. And reading IRC archives sucks, so asynchronous communication is
> much harder :)
>
+1. It is much easier to read and comprehend a mail thread rather than
to follow a noisy IRC chat log.
Samisa...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Leo Simons <ma...@leosimons.com>.
On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 06:03:52PM -0700, Craig L Russell wrote:
> Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis)
> as an Apache archive?
Some apache projects that do you use IRC do keep archives. Things like
#asfinfra are not archived on purpose and will stay unarchived.
> Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
> like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
> because of time zone or other reasons can't attend.
Yup. And reading IRC archives sucks, so asynchronous communication is
much harder :)
> If it's added to an Apache archive, it is searchable and immediately
> available to search engines.
And that's one concern often raised. People that use IRC tend to be more,
ehm, frank, and reading back an IRC log later will often stir up things that
don't deserve stirring up.
> Surely Web 2.0 has solved this simple issue!
>
> ?
Projects could simply chuck the logs in SVN and publish them on their
website. Other projects post transcripts to mailing lists.
> On Aug 9, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> >>Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:57 AM
> >>To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >>Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
> >>
> >>I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
> >>have to be logged on the mailing list anyways.
Not just "logged". They actually need to be made there. You cannot arrive
at a decision on IRC and then just notify the project.
> >>But I certainly have
> >>no objections for the channel being there.
> >
> >Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's
> >easier for
> >real-time interaction as well.
> >
> >As another idea, we could try to do a developer Skype chat or
> >something. I
> >think the Tapestry folks did it once and it sounded like kind of a
> >neat
> >idea. I know my interaction with just about everyone here has been
> >email
> >only.
Be careful -- skype is not available to everyone (eg people running
solaris or bsd). At least IRC is an open protocol.
LSD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Craig L Russell <Cr...@Sun.COM>.
Has anyone ever considered making IRC chats available (on some basis)
as an Apache archive? Seems that Apache (myself included) doesn't
like IRC so much because it is not available to those of us who
because of time zone or other reasons can't attend.
If it's added to an Apache archive, it is searchable and immediately
available to search engines.
Surely Web 2.0 has solved this simple issue!
?
Craig
On Aug 9, 2006, at 3:49 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:57 AM
>> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
>>
>> I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
>> have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
>> no objections for the channel being there.
>
> Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's
> easier for
> real-time interaction as well.
>
> As another idea, we could try to do a developer Skype chat or
> something. I
> think the Tapestry folks did it once and it sounded like kind of a
> neat
> idea. I know my interaction with just about everyone here has been
> email
> only.
>
> --
> Kevin
>
Craig Russell
Architect, Sun Java Enterprise System http://java.sun.com/products/jdo
408 276-5638 mailto:Craig.Russell@sun.com
P.S. A good JDO? O, Gasp!
RE: IRC Channel?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:57 AM
> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
>
> I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
> have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
> no objections for the channel being there.
Right. It's nicer for more casual conversation. Sometimes it's easier for
real-time interaction as well.
As another idea, we could try to do a developer Skype chat or something. I
think the Tapestry folks did it once and it sounded like kind of a neat
idea. I know my interaction with just about everyone here has been email
only.
--
Kevin
RE: IRC Channel?
Posted by "Gentry, Michael (Contractor)" <mi...@fanniemae.com>.
I can't IRC, so makes no difference to me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:andrus@objectstyle.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:57 AM
To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
no objections for the channel being there.
Andrus
On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> There was one for #cayenne for awhile, and there's no reason you
> couldn't resurrect it.
>
> On 8/8/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> What does everyone think of setting up an IRC channel for cayenne?
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd
>>
>
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Andrus Adamchik <an...@objectstyle.org>.
I am not a big fan of IRC, besides all consequential discussions will
have to be logged on the mailing list anyways. But I certainly have
no objections for the channel being there.
Andrus
On Aug 8, 2006, at 11:19 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
> There was one for #cayenne for awhile, and there's no reason you
> couldn't resurrect it.
>
> On 8/8/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> What does everyone think of setting up an IRC channel for cayenne?
>>
>> TTFN,
>>
>> -bd
>>
>
RE: IRC Channel?
Posted by Kevin Menard <km...@servprise.com>.
Indeed. I'm the only one in it :-(
#cayenne on FreeNode.
--
Kevin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienenb@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: cayenne-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: IRC Channel?
>
> There was one for #cayenne for awhile, and there's no reason you
> couldn't resurrect it.
>
> On 8/8/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > What does everyone think of setting up an IRC channel for cayenne?
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd
> >
Re: IRC Channel?
Posted by Mike Kienenberger <mk...@gmail.com>.
There was one for #cayenne for awhile, and there's no reason you
couldn't resurrect it.
On 8/8/06, Bill Dudney <bd...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> What does everyone think of setting up an IRC channel for cayenne?
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd
>