It's not the technology - it's the process

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

Leo Sutic wrote:

>  
>
>>From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:mcconnell@apache.org] 
>>Leo Sutic wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
>>>>
>>>>Avalon Committers : I'd like a vote of confidence please.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>+100 for trying, mate.
>>>
>>>+1 for keeping on trying, but
>>>
>>>+0 for your chances of success.
>>>
>>>Mediation is only useful if the two sides want to get along. 
>>>So far it seems like Peter and Stephen are fine with making any 
>>>compromise and that they are happy to include any Merlin/Phoenix 
>>>feature - as long as the end result is *exactly* like they 
>>>intended it all along.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Leo:
>>
>>Let me point out to you a two or three facts of life:
>>    
>>
>
>...
>
>  
>
>>This isn't what I indended - it's better - a lot better!
>>    
>>
>
>Stephen,
>
>I'm not about to get into an argument with you on this. This thread 
>(and its predecessors) has been a time-sink since it started. The 
>issue is not your achievements, Merlin speaks for itself, it is the
>mailing-list/CVS/code-war that you and Peter have been at for a while 
>now.
>
>So let me just sum it up: Both you and Peter are convinced that you 
>are right. You are both willing to compromise. But not enough for 
>any type of mediation, because you would have to give up some central 
>notion of your design. Thus deadlock. Thus any type of mediation is a 
>total and utter waste of time for everyone involved.
>
I don't want an argument either ... so there's two things we agree on ;-)

I work with a lot of code and that code is very dependent on Avalon 
Framework - and like you I don't want the framework to change.  Its been 
a year or two that I've been doing things here in Avalon and during that 
time Pete's been the most active contributor of code - really good code. 

Problem is that we have been very comfortable with Pete doing 
everything.  I know I have been really comfortable sitting back and 
watching Phoenix evolve.  New features, new benefits - and all of this 
for free! 

But there is a dark side - Pete's not ok with the process of dealing 
with alternative opinions - and I'm not just talking about mine - I'm 
talking about this is a general sense.  We have already some significant 
fractures in Avalon (e.g. interpretation of lookup semantics in ECM and 
Phoenix are totally different - Merlin/Containerkit going in divergent 
directions).  We can continue to build are own playgrounds or we can act 
with responsibility concerning the evolution of a complete solution - a 
solution without fractures.  To achieve this we need much better Avalon 
level process to control product and service evolution. 

For example, I watch commits of containerkit dependencies into Phoenix 
without a single word of discussion - not even a comment. One more 
fracture in the Avalon technology offer.  This typifies my objection and 
my basic concern.  We - you - me - and the other committers here at 
Avalon have to take much more responsibility for the direction and 
integrity of this project. 

Avalon cannot grow without engagement and responsibility.

This isn't about the technology.


Cheers, Steve.

-- 

Stephen J. McConnell

OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>