Huh? (was Re: Merlin's Future with Avalon)

[Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org>]

Stephen McConnell wrote:


>> You get very defensive everytime I mention Merlin in light of Phoenix
>> and Fortress.  What's the deal?  
> 
> I think your assertions on thread have been missleading.

That statement seems to insinuate that I am intentionally being misleading.
I am not, furthermore, I do not see where I am being misleading.  Disagreement
does not equal misleading.

>> First:
>>
>> Do not make statements that cast doubt on the intelligence of your peers. 
> 
> I'm not casting doubt on your intelligence - I'm actually complementing 
> you on your creativity.

That's like saying "Your pretty smart, for an inbreed."  Keep your backhanded
compliments to yourself please.  They are not appreciated.

>> Second:
>>
>> AMTAGS is in use with both Fortress and Phoenix.  Because Phoenix was our
>> first forray into the world of meta-info and context entries, it is our
>> de facto standard.
> 
> Please take a closer look at what I said above and the prior discussions 
> concerning AMTAGS. I also suggest you take a closer look at Phoenix, tag 
> usage and meta-model before presenting the Phoenix/Fortress commonality 
> as a case supporting your position.  Also, it would be perhaps wise if 
> we stay away from assertions such as "first" == "de facto standard".  
> Standards are built either through consensus or convergence based on 
> needs.  Consensus is a result of collaboration whereas convergence is 
> more typically a result of adoption in order to gain some tangible 
> benefit.   In the case of AMTAGS it is neither - it is simply a starting 
> point in the process of potentially establishing a standard.

That will be the subject of another thread.  However DO realize that Phoenix
is a released container, and as such has more credibility as to how components
are defined and used than Merlin at this stage.  Therefore, it would be wise
to retain as much of that usage as possible so as not to force our users to
rewrite their components or change source code every time we release something.
I get the impression that you fail to realize this.

>> As to how Merlin is divergent (hopefully you will get it this time):
>>
>> * All your context entries use the full URN notation, which makes Merlin
>>   the only container to support this styling. 
> 
> How is this divergent?  It actually reflects discussions on this list.  
> It addresses on of the interoperability stumbling points that constantly 
> reappears - namely assumptions by containers about context.  The usage 
> of URN style naming in no way inhibits the application of Merlin nor 
> forces any constraint on component authors.  I simply do not see how 
> this is any shape of form supports you divergence theory.

Those discussions were never adopted as the official way we were going to
do things.  In fact, where it was last left, there was still some disagreement
as to whether we should use URNs or not.  I see that as divergent from
community consensus.

>> * Merlin suggests that there is much more in the avalon namespace than
>>   anyone has agreed to.  AMTAGS is our current standard--it needs to
>>   be adjusted, but it is what we have.  Merlin does not comply.
> 
> This has already been addressed under another thread.  Merlin does not 
> comply for some very good reason.  The AMTAGS proposal as it stands 
> today is woefully insufficient - clearly insufficient to meet Merlin 
> needs - and keep in mind that Merlin "needs" translate directly to 
> component management without container lock-in.  Beyond that, you are 
> aware of the actions I've been taking to address AMTAGS and arrive at 
> something workable.  If this is the source of divergence that your so 
> keen on pressing home - then I suggest to that there are perhaps better 
> and more constructive approaches to raising this.

I haven't seen anything concrete to support your position, and this subject
deserves its own thread.  I would encourage you to start a thread and detail
exactly what is insufficient in the AMTAGS proposal.


>> Steve, this last comment is unnecessary.  Please refrain from such 
>> comments
>> as they do not help. 
> 
> Berin - this entire thread is unnecessary!
> 
> ;-)

Apparently it is, as you seem not to be learning anything.  Your smiley does
not counteract the slap in the face that your last comment is.  Please learn
how to express your oppinions without attacking the person you disagree with.


-- 

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
  deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                 - Benjamin Franklin


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

RE: Huh? (was Re: Merlin's Future with Avalon)

[Niclas Hedhman <ni...@hedhman.org>]

Paolo wrote:
> The most
> negative jumps of these threads seem to be related to the way any remark
> is taken more than to the way they are made - that is why aggression
> tends to escalate mostly on the reactions.

I partly disagree with your statement. Form of delivery of criticism is
important.

> People just tend to be over-defensive about their baby-project or
> baby-ideas. And then they tend to take any remark as personal and don't
> notice that it is just a debate of ideas.

He/she who has not "killed his butterflies" before, will always tender for
their pet project in over-protective ways. The ability to throw away
something you have worked hard on is not common, but IMHO very valued.

> IMHO it is more positive to focus on developing thicker skins than on
> transforming the Apache mailing lists on the stage of heavy diplomatic
> exercises.

100% agree here.
But looking at Stephen's replies, one could argue that he has thick skin,
just deliver his facts/arguments in a machine gun manner, which is then
not perceived well at the other end. Noone is wrong, still it gets a bit
heated.

I like the Cocoon list. Heated debate, sometimes harsh tones and
borderline of personal attacks, and then "Sorry if you took it that way. I
didn't mean to upset you." remarkably well smooths things over. The
community there is much stronger and thriving in "technical issues"
differencess.

Berin always tries to separate the "technical issues" from "technical
skill" from "community skills", yet it doesn't go down that well in
Avalon-space. Why is that?

Could it be that not enough developers are involved in each piece, not
enough people work across the container borders that exists today?? I
think so. The code is not bad enough, as Stefano would say, it doesn't
itch enough people outside the initial developer(s).



Cheers
Niclas




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

RE: Huh? (was Re: Merlin's Future with Avalon)

[Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>]

Hi Ken and all,


Actually, I think Ken's remarks apply to BOTH Stephen and Berin... and 
most other people participating on Apache lists. =:o)

However, I am not sure that this kind of negative cycle starts because
of the way one makes remarks about someone else's project. The most
negative jumps of these threads seem to be related to the way any remark
is taken more than to the way they are made - that is why aggression
tends to escalate mostly on the reactions.

People just tend to be over-defensive about their baby-project or 
baby-ideas. And then they tend to take any remark as personal and don't
notice that it is just a debate of ideas.

IMHO it is more positive to focus on developing thicker skins than on
transforming the Apache mailing lists on the stage of heavy diplomatic
exercises.

BTW, this is what I like about Sam Ruby: thick skin, very calm
reactions, very economic on words (I have to learn a lot on this one).


I participate less on these lists these days, but I still follow them
regularly. From my perspective it is quite clear that Stephen and Berin
are on the same boat and have the same targets, (as it happens with the
other Avaloners, of course).

If only they could believe (or just remembered) this "same boat" thing...



Just one more thought about agreeing on standards:

Of course that we are all after the Holy Grail of the perfect framework
(hey, this is Avalon!) and of course that we tend to believe that there
is only one Grail...

...BUT none of us is completely sure about how that Holy Grail looks
like and we all often admit that we are still searching.

So, lets not try to find an agreement about how things should look like
when it can be too early. Lets keep giving some room to experimentation
and to try different competing ideas.


Thank you Berin, Stephen and all the others for the work you have been
doing here. I keep learning a lot from you all.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: news [mailto:news@main.gmane.org]On Behalf Of Nicola Ken Barozzi
> Sent: segunda-feira, 21 de Julho de 2003 7:42
> To: dev@avalon.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Huh? (was Re: Merlin's Future with Avalon)
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> It does not show. What I think is that your rational intention is not to 
> attack anyone, but emotionally you feel Merlin attacked, and you reply 
> in tone, even if it's not what you want to convey.
> 
> Mail, as well as conversations, is *not* aseptic. Emotions percolate 
> through, if you want it or not.
> 
> ...
> 
> See, you are trying to demonstrate by words and rational arguments that 
> you are right... which is not the thing to do. Think about the 
> "emotional" part: you felt attacked, it showed in your mails, Berin felt 
> it and feels attacked. Now the problem is *not* who is right, but how to 
> make the other *feel* better and not attacked.
> 
> Rational arguments don't work for this, they only make things harder. A 
> simple "sorry if you felt like this, I did not mean to, what can we do 
> to fix the issue" is much more effective.
> 
> Remember that others feel how they feel, not how you would like them to 
> feel.
> 
> ...
>
> Don't do the same errors that you have seen others do and that you have 
> learned to dislike. Please.
> 
> -- 
> Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
>              - verba volant, scripta manent -
>     (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org
> 

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

Re: Huh? (was Re: Merlin's Future with Avalon)

[Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>]

Stephen McConnell wrote, On 19/07/2003 0.03:
...
> Berin:
> 
> I seems that you want turn anything I say into a personal attack. 

Not only with Berin, Stephen.

...
> I'm not attacking you.  

It does not show. What I think is that your rational intention is not to 
attack anyone, but emotionally you feel Merlin attacked, and you reply 
in tone, even if it's not what you want to convey.

Mail, as well as conversations, is *not* aseptic. Emotions percolate 
through, if you want it or not.

...
> Let me detail this for you.

See, you are trying to demonstrate by words and rational arguments that 
you are right... which is not the thing to do. Think about the 
"emotional" part: you felt attacked, it showed in your mails, Berin felt 
it and feels attacked. Now the problem is *not* who is right, but how to 
make the other *feel* better and not attacked.

Rational arguments don't work for this, they only make things harder. A 
simple "sorry if you felt like this, I did not mean to, what can we do 
to fix the issue" is much more effective.

Remember that others feel how they feel, not how you would like them to 
feel.

> Finally - I would appreciate it if you could drop the "steve's being 
> defensive" thing. This is not being defense - it is correcting a mistake 
> you have - presumably arising from inaccurate or incomplete assumptions 
> you have about the Merlin platform.  If you wish to avoid similar 
> patterns in the future - you may want to try to avoid the use of 
> negative generalizations.

Read this sentence, then reread it, then reread it. Then again take a 
walk, come back, and read it one last time.

You will hopefully understand that your mails *do* show you as 
defensive, and this is seen by most of your peers IIUC. And if a peer 
has to be careful of how he talks to you, there is a problem.

We have faith in you. You are here and we are working so that Merlin can 
drive the new Avalon container. Facts are positive. Then please stop 
hanging on a single word because it's useless and friction making.

Don't do the same errors that you have seen others do and that you have 
learned to dislike. Please.

-- 
Nicola Ken Barozzi                   nicolaken@apache.org
             - verba volant, scripta manent -
    (discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Re: Huh? (was Re: Merlin's Future with Avalon)

[Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>]

Berin Loritsch wrote:

> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>> You get very defensive everytime I mention Merlin in light of Phoenix
>>> and Fortress.  What's the deal?  
>>
>>
>> I think your assertions on thread have been missleading.
>
>
> That statement seems to insinuate that I am intentionally being 
> misleading.
> I am not, furthermore, I do not see where I am being misleading.  
> Disagreement
> does not equal misleading. 


Berin:

I seems that you want turn anything I say into a personal attack. I'm 
not attacking you.  I said that your assertions on the matter of 
divergence were misleading. I said this because you were conveying 
information which in my opinion was and remains just plain incorrect.  
In doing so I happen to think your misrepresenting the current status of 
things related to Merlin development.  You have said above that you do 
not see where you are being misleading.

Let me detail this for you.

You made a statement suggesting that Merlin was divergent from Phoenix 
and Fortress with respect to component definition. You did not provide 
any details and the time, but after being pressed on the subject, you 
raised two points concerning (a) the application of URNs within Merlin 
and (b) non-conformance with AMTAGS.  I responded - pointing out to you 
that the claims you were making could not reasonably be framed as 
diverse together with the reason why.  I will not repeat everything from 
that message - but instead - I will try to explain to you why your 
conclusions are misleading.

Firstly the subject of the usage of URN patterns within Merlin.  You 
assert that because the Merlin implementation does not follow letter for 
letter existing practices - that it is divergent.  This is grossly 
misleading because in-fact Merlin is neutral with respect to management 
of names.  If you go over the tutorials on Merlin or take a look at the 
sources, you will see that Merlin places *no* restriction on a component 
author. Instead, the implementation enables arbitrary approaches.  What 
is perhaps amusing in all of this is that the Merlin implementation is 
in fact the least diverse with respect to component/container contract 
and component implementation of any Avalon container.  Your comments are 
misrepresenting this reality and creating a false and negative impression.

Your second point attempted to correlate that fact that because the 
Merlin implementation was not embracing an insufficient AMTAGS proposal, 
that Merlin was therefore diverse.  This is misleading - the truth of 
the matter is the AMTAGS proposal as it stands insufficient, as you are 
well aware.  This is not a question of being diverse - it is a question 
of insufficiency of a specification to meet operation requirements.

Finally - I would appreciate it if you could drop the "steve's being 
defensive" thing. This is not being defense - it is correcting a mistake 
you have - presumably arising from inaccurate or incomplete assumptions 
you have about the Merlin platform.  If you wish to avoid similar 
patterns in the future - you may want to try to avoid the use of 
negative generalizations.

Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:mcconnell@apache.org
http://www.osm.net

Sent via James running under Merlin as an NT service.
http://avalon.apache.org/sandbox/merlin




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