IRC

[Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>]

Howdy,

I've setup #cxf @ irc.codehaus.org if anyone wants to chat about  
things. I'll setup a logger on the channel shortly so we can catalog  
anything relevant and post it to the list.

Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org

Re: IRC

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:23 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote:

> So far we've used IRC to bounce ideas/information off each other.  
> And then we've brought them back to the list.

What is wrong with bouncing the ideas off each other
on the list? You get Email archives as an added bonus.
Plus, it's easier for potential new people to get
involved.

Re: IRC

[Dan Diephouse <da...@envoisolutions.com>]

So far we've used IRC to bounce ideas/information off each other. And 
then we've brought them back to the list. See the threads 
DeferredObjectManager, Component Discovery, and Configuration APIs for 
examples. We aren't planning on making development decisions on it and 
will be sure to bring things back to the list.

- Dan

Jim Jagielski wrote:
> A reminder that by its very nature, IRC is exclusionary and
> contrary to ASF principles. Long-standing ASF projects have
> a hard time using it effectively and without sacrificing
> the communal nature of development crucial to the
> ASF; an Incubator podling will have a MUCH more
> difficult time.
>
> ALL development MUST be done on the Email lists...
>
> On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I've setup #cxf @ irc.codehaus.org if anyone wants to chat about 
>> things. I'll setup a logger on the channel shortly so we can catalog 
>> anything relevant and post it to the list.
>>
>> Jason van Zyl
>> jason@maven.org
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Dan Diephouse
Envoi Solutions
http://envoisolutions.com
http://netzooid.com/blog

Re: IRC

[Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>]

On 14 Aug 06, at 11:47 AM 14 Aug 06, Jim Jagielski wrote:

>
> On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Aug 06, at 9:33 AM 14 Aug 06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>>
>>> A reminder that by its very nature, IRC is exclusionary and
>>> contrary to ASF principles.
>>
>> Not communicating with the team as a whole about what has been  
>> discussed is contrary to ASF principles.
>
> I'm sure you're not saying that something like "Hey, we
> discussed Foo on IRC and have decided to do it, so we
> thought we'd let the dev@ list know about it now" is
> OK...
>

No, more like "Hey, we discussed Foo on IRC and now want to bring the  
discussion to the list." Which is what we've been doing. As I said  
previously, I agree that IRC is not the place to decide a course of  
action for a project, just a good place to hash out ideas.

> IRC has its use, and is good when some things need to
> be resolved real-time. But it is NOT a good method of
> ensuring a communal development environment, due to
> the simple fact that unless one happens to be on
> IRC at that exact moment of time, one "misses out"
> on the discussion. I won't even address the non-archival
> aspect of IRC.
>
>> We had a general discussion about IRC on the incubator list and I  
>> think it can be used effectively without compromising the  
>> integrity of the project. I think the policy is that IRC can't be  
>> used to make decisions which is perfectly reasonable.
>>
>>> Long-standing ASF projects have
>>> a hard time using it effectively and without sacrificing
>>> the communal nature of development crucial to the
>>> ASF; an Incubator podling will have a MUCH more
>>> difficult time.
>>
>> I would disagree that IRC is inherently exclusionary
>
> If there are 20 developers and 19 are located on the
> US West Coast and 1 is located in Sri Lanka (or Australia)
> or someplace else, then it follows that "most" IRC discussions
> would be held during a convenient time for the 19 and
> at a non-convenient time for the 1. Even more so when
> it's like "Hey, let's all get together on IRC now and
> hash this out!".

If that happened to be the case then that one person would speak up  
and IRC could be dropped I supposed. But discouraging IRC for a  
project is just going to promote a black market of private  
conversation. You can't stop it because working in real-time way,  
closest to a face-to-face manner, is the way people most naturally  
work together. So it can officially be discouraged or banned but then  
you're going to lose a record of that information. In cases that you  
mentioned above a solution can usually be found to allow the more  
optimal modes of communication with a disparate group of people. It's  
just a balance.

>
> And I did not say that no projects use it, but rather
> they have a hard time using it effectively, which is
> what I stand by.

Fair enough. I happen to feel it can be used effectively.

>
>
>

Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org

Re: IRC

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

On Aug 14, 2006, at 10:07 AM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

>
> On 14 Aug 06, at 9:33 AM 14 Aug 06, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
>> A reminder that by its very nature, IRC is exclusionary and
>> contrary to ASF principles.
>
> Not communicating with the team as a whole about what has been  
> discussed is contrary to ASF principles.

I'm sure you're not saying that something like "Hey, we
discussed Foo on IRC and have decided to do it, so we
thought we'd let the dev@ list know about it now" is
OK...

IRC has its use, and is good when some things need to
be resolved real-time. But it is NOT a good method of
ensuring a communal development environment, due to
the simple fact that unless one happens to be on
IRC at that exact moment of time, one "misses out"
on the discussion. I won't even address the non-archival
aspect of IRC.

> We had a general discussion about IRC on the incubator list and I  
> think it can be used effectively without compromising the integrity  
> of the project. I think the policy is that IRC can't be used to  
> make decisions which is perfectly reasonable.
>
>> Long-standing ASF projects have
>> a hard time using it effectively and without sacrificing
>> the communal nature of development crucial to the
>> ASF; an Incubator podling will have a MUCH more
>> difficult time.
>
> I would disagree that IRC is inherently exclusionary

If there are 20 developers and 19 are located on the
US West Coast and 1 is located in Sri Lanka (or Australia)
or someplace else, then it follows that "most" IRC discussions
would be held during a convenient time for the 19 and
at a non-convenient time for the 1. Even more so when
it's like "Hey, let's all get together on IRC now and
hash this out!".

And I did not say that no projects use it, but rather
they have a hard time using it effectively, which is
what I stand by.

Re: IRC

[Jason van Zyl <ja...@maven.org>]

On 14 Aug 06, at 9:33 AM 14 Aug 06, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> A reminder that by its very nature, IRC is exclusionary and
> contrary to ASF principles.

Not communicating with the team as a whole about what has been  
discussed is contrary to ASF principles. We had a general discussion  
about IRC on the incubator list and I think it can be used  
effectively without compromising the integrity of the project. I  
think the policy is that IRC can't be used to make decisions which is  
perfectly reasonable.

> Long-standing ASF projects have
> a hard time using it effectively and without sacrificing
> the communal nature of development crucial to the
> ASF; an Incubator podling will have a MUCH more
> difficult time.

I don't think that's entirely true. Turbine used it a great deal, and  
Maven has always used it and we have people all over the globe and  
we've managed to get the salient points into logs, the wiki and back  
to the mailing lists. And as the Wicket folks pointed out they happen  
to use it quite a bit as well and works effectively for them. We have  
often taken turns shifting schedules so that we can all chat together  
because it can be orders of magnitude more effective then trying to  
communicate by email. At least with Maven we have made a concerted  
effort to catalog everything we discuss in JIRA/Confluence and the  
mailing list. There is nothing that we discuss that doesn't show up  
in a public forum. I would disagree that IRC is inherently  
exclusionary though it can be when used incorrectly. Used correctly I  
think it helps speed development and there's no reason every last  
scrap of information gleaned from an IRC conversation can't be  
cataloged.

>
> ALL development MUST be done on the Email lists...
>

If that means that no design or development discussion can be carried  
out on IRC then I think that's just impractical and unreasonable. I  
think the general principle of using some common sense and having a  
strategy to disseminate any ideas discussed in IRC is reasonable. I  
think if you schedule a meeting in IRC and try to make decisions  
within a short period of time where those in other TZs have no chance  
to participate then that is exclusionary.


> On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:
>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I've setup #cxf @ irc.codehaus.org if anyone wants to chat about  
>> things. I'll setup a logger on the channel shortly so we can  
>> catalog anything relevant and post it to the list.
>>
>> Jason van Zyl
>> jason@maven.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Jason van Zyl
jason@maven.org

Re: IRC

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

A reminder that by its very nature, IRC is exclusionary and
contrary to ASF principles. Long-standing ASF projects have
a hard time using it effectively and without sacrificing
the communal nature of development crucial to the
ASF; an Incubator podling will have a MUCH more
difficult time.

ALL development MUST be done on the Email lists...

On Aug 4, 2006, at 12:40 PM, Jason van Zyl wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> I've setup #cxf @ irc.codehaus.org if anyone wants to chat about  
> things. I'll setup a logger on the channel shortly so we can  
> catalog anything relevant and post it to the list.
>
> Jason van Zyl
> jason@maven.org
>
>
>