Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

I previously sent out an e-mail regarding the freezing of the branches/1.1 code so we can march to a 
release.   I expect you could tell by the tone of the e-mail that I was very frustrated.  My 
frustration arose from a private e-mail asking if IBM had some secret agenda and if that was the 
reason I was trying to move the release out.  This really set me off.

You will have to be the judge as to whether IBM yields any undue influence on the project; I believe 
the answer is no.  From my perspective, IBM goes out of its way to make sure we do not "force" the 
community.  We carefully consider how we interact in the community.  not only about how we conduct 
ourselves but what the appearance of our actions might be perceived.  Yes, we base a server offering 
on Geronimo and we do have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed; however, so do a number 
of other companies.  It is always a challenge to balance contribution and influence to ensure your 
growing the ecosystem and I think we do a damn good job of it.  IMHO we actually are too conservative.

The reason I'm trying to move the release along is because it has been OVER FIVE MONTHS since we 
have given our users anything else to look at.  Does anyone remember who they are?  These are the 
developers who we're trying to create something for.  Developers that will be interested in using 
our project.  I don't know about you but in this fast paced world of development people don't sit 
around waiting for FIVE MONTHS for anything.  They will choose something else and then you've lost 
them.  You've broken their confidence on your ability to deliver and consequently they'll be less 
likely to believe you'll deliver when you say you will.

I am not pushing the release because of some secret IBM agenda.  I'm embarrassed that WE can't seem 
to deliver something.  Originally we said end of January and then discovered that we had some 
refactoring to do.  It will only take a few weeks we thought.  Two months later (and stalled 
development on new innovation) we set a target date of April 28th.  Yes, I chose the date but it was 
four weeks from the day I suggested it; we seemed to have consensus.  Unfortunately we found that 
our changes (they were the right thing to do) caused us lots of heart burn in CTS testing.  Few 
people were able to help with that for whatever reason so it was a long slow grind.  We burned up 
April and then started into May.  Java One was in there for a week so we basically lost two more weeks.

Continuing to try and get a release out we've diagnosed performance problems, survived an SVN outage 
at Apache, a Codehaus outage, I've written numerous e-mails about getting 1.1 out and yet we are 
still not in lock step as to what we're trying to accomplish.

In short, yes, I am frustrated not because some secret IBM plan is not coming to fruition but 
because the community, of which I am apart, is dysfunctional to the point of laughability.  We are 
now under Review and Commit.  We're not doing well there either but that is likely a separate thread 
for discussion.  I know we're a volunteer organization but I hope that being part of a project makes 
us a team.

If we cannot begin to operate like a team its going to be a slow painful process.

So, to answer the question about why I'm pushing to get a release out, there is no secret IBM plot. 
  I simply want to get this release out to break the log jam on development.  In one e-mail thread 
it was posed that new features were being added to a frozen branch and that was met with a wink. 
One person simply said maybe we need balance, will you help me on the next release?  Wow, what about 
this one.  Are we a team or a bunch of people that act as an Army of One.

I'll post another note with the schedule of the release.

Yes, I'm frustrated.  I know others are as well.

Matt

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

> A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.

Could use the Road Map feature of JIRA... though I think that works  
better with more frequent releases (so that the number of issues is  
less).  I like how Atlassian uses their JIRA (and Confluence)  to  
organize their releases.  I would like to see G use something closer  
to their approach.

--jason

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Donald Woods <dr...@yahoo.com>]

I like that model too, as long as we can still deliver more than one 
release a year and we allow more people to have commit access to the 
sandbox area for more collaboration on major enhancements and changes...


-Donald


Jason Dillon wrote:
> I think SuSE-like would be a good idea too. 
> 
> --jason
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Aaron Mulder" <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39 
> To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
> 
> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
> 
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
> 
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>>
>>Bruce Snyder wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
>>>>claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
>>>>it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>>>>working toward are.
>>>
>>>I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
>>>calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
>>>all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>>>revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>>>suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
>>>organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>>>immensely.
>>
>>I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>>helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>>talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
>>extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
>>consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>>share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>>Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>>these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>>
>>It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>>talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
>>that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>>these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>>clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>>way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>>communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>>A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>>>good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>>>cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>>>might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
>>>any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
>>>But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>>>
>>>Just my $0.02.
>>>
>>>Bruce
>>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jason Dillon <ja...@planet57.com>]

I think SuSE-like would be a good idea too. 

--jason


-----Original Message-----
From: "Aaron Mulder" <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 09:34:39 
To:dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.

As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
move forward.

As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
(though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
try something different for the release after.

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> >> working toward are.
> >
> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> > immensely.
>
> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>
> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>
> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>
> Jeff
>
> >
> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> >
> > Just my $0.02.
> >
> > Bruce
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>]

I just saw this thread and want to say my 2c, I haven't yet read the  
other threads and have to run out so sorry if this statement has been  
repeated.  The most important thing we can do to make the project  
succeed is to ship, and to ship often.  Moving forward we need to  
have a fixed interval of when we release and based on those intervals  
each of us need to be accountable on what we can commit.  We  
desperately need to be able to "give-up" function, meaning we must be  
willing to modify our roadmap of contained items and defer items if  
they cannot be contained within the schedule, rather then push out  
the schedule which seems to be the easy answer.  If we can prove to  
our users that they can constantly expect releases at consistent  
intervals this would be a huge win.

Take a look at the Callisto effort in Eclipse.  Not only has the  
Eclipse project not missed a release date in who knows how long (if  
ever), but now they are releasing 10 top level projects  
simultaneously. I say we learn from the eclipse model, follow it, and  
tweak the process to our needs.

-sachin

On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:34 AM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>
> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
>
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
>
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
>
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No  
>> one can
>> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out  
>> there.  And
>> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> working toward are.
>> >
>> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline  
>> (i.e., a
>> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may  
>> help on
>> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a  
>> volunteer
>> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> > immensely.
>>
>> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made  
>> things
>> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with  
>> group
>> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a  
>> panacea.
>>
>> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully  
>> expect
>> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a  
>> long
>> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >
>> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,  
>> determining
>> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite  
>> difficult.
>> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02.
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>


-sachin

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/14/06, John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
> default option.  To give you and the list some insight into why I am
> concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private
> e-mail from Aaron after I started the "Questions about
> www.geronimoplugins.com" site thread on the dev list.  I didn't get any
> response to my mail.  I think we need to discuss these concerns and how
> they could be addressed.
>
> Regards,
> John
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> Hi Aaron,
>
> I like the concept of the plugins site. I get concerned when important
> things like this aren't discussed openly before being implemented.
>
> I'm pretty sure you weren't planning on doing anything nasty, but I am
> more concerned (with my ASF hat on) with some of the issues that may be
> encountered in the future such as:
>
> - Arguments over why an external site was made the default instead of an
> ASF site, possibly giving the owners of the site a financial advantage
> (e.g. advertising on the site etc.)  I have no problems with you having
> your own plugins site, but if it is the default, it is though the ASF is
> endorsing it and giving you an advantage over anyone else who would like
> to do the same.
> - Concern whether in the long run the site can continue to afford the
> bandwidth, maintenance etc without charging for it
> - What is there to stop you getting nasty if things go sour?  What would
> the impact on Geronimo be if that happened considering you would have a
> reasonable amount of traffic/exposure going to your plugins site?
>
> In a perfect world I wouldn't have these concerns..
>
> One way some of these concerns could be overcome is to have non ASF code
> hosted in an "open" hosting environment where an individual/company does
> not hold the keys to the site.

As the person who originally formulated and then discussed this entire
idea with Aaron, I'll step up here and address these issues. I know
that Aaron has said this before, but I'll inject my knowledge.

When Aaron and I were first discussing the idea of hosting custom
configurations for Geronimo and developing a command line tool for
fetching them and making each Geronimo instance a server of it's
custom configs, the biggest dilemma I hit was how to offer hosting of
the configs in a manner that allowed software using any license to be
hosted. Apache won't allow any *GPL software, the Codehaus will allow
LGPL but not GPL (which I discovered by having a conversation with
Jason van Zyl), SourceForge allows any license but has experienced
some serious connectivity issues in the past that made me say no to
that idea right away. The conclusion that I drew was that there was no
easy answer outside of possibly hosting a brand new site somewhere. As
Aaron and I discussed this matter, I got really busy with work and
wasn't available as often. So Aaron began to flesh out the idea
further which is how he developed the notion of plugins instead of
custom configurations (which, if I might add, is a much better idea -
plugins, that is). This style of development has been done by all of
us in the past at one time or another, especially on this project.

I think I know Aaron well enough to know that he had the best of
intentions when creating the plugins site. In fact, he even said that
he had no issue with anyone else helping to administer the
site/machine/domain. Unfortunately nobody took him up on it. To get
the idea off the ground, someone had to purchase the domain name and
look into hosting and this is another area where Aaron stepped up. I'm
sure that he figured that the administrative aspects would be dealt
with once everyone saw the fruits of his labor and how beneficial this
could be for Geronimo.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>]

Plugins is becoming such a general term now days, I think the only  
real way to distinguish the overlap is through education and good  
documentation, not by renaming the technologies which I think would  
add further confusion.

On Aug 24, 2006, at 5:13 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:

> As for your second point about Geronimo plugins vs. the Geronimo
> Eclipse plugin terminology, I totally agree with you that this will be
> confusing to end users.  Actually since Geronimo decided to introduce
> the concept of plugins I have started to notice how many other types
> of software besides Eclipse also use that term.  My browser, for
> example, just told me that "Additional plugins are required to display
> all the media on this page".  I was using a Macromedia product that
> also complained that I needed a plugin. etc. I don't have any specific
> ideas on how to avoid confusing users about the terminology overlap,
> other than to make sure that Geronimo's Eclipse plugin is listed at
> the appropriate site :-)


-sachin

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

Hey Bruce,  Glad you asked these questions.  I have not had any
offline discussions with Aaron about geronimoplugins.com.  My
intention was to have any conversation here on the dev list in context
of where the discussion left off before.  My gmail reader threads the
whole discussion together for me nicely so maybe I'm taking that
context for granted since it actually transpired a while ago :-)  Here
is a link to the mail archives for historical purposes:

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/geronimo-dev/200606.mbox/%3C7b3355cb0606190946r73fd7328k1bcddf2473fc60ff@mail.gmail.com%3E

I do not see any conflict or overlap between the two efforts.  In fact
I find them quite complimentary since geronimoplugins.com site is a
privately owned plugin repository that hosts plugins and (if things
work out as I would hope) geronimoplugincentral is a Geronimo PMC
owned site that supports the community and provides an index of
plugins that are hosted elsewhere.  This is exactly analogous to how
Eclipse has set up their plugin ecosystem -- there are many plugin
sites where you can download plugins directly into your Eclipse
runtime, and there is a community site (Eclipse Plugin Central) that
supports the user community with forums, reviews, etc.  My intent is
to follow their lead where it makes sense since they already have been
in this space for a long time.

As for your second point about Geronimo plugins vs. the Geronimo
Eclipse plugin terminology, I totally agree with you that this will be
confusing to end users.  Actually since Geronimo decided to introduce
the concept of plugins I have started to notice how many other types
of software besides Eclipse also use that term.  My browser, for
example, just told me that "Additional plugins are required to display
all the media on this page".  I was using a Macromedia product that
also complained that I needed a plugin. etc. I don't have any specific
ideas on how to avoid confusing users about the terminology overlap,
other than to make sure that Geronimo's Eclipse plugin is listed at
the appropriate site :-)

Best wishes,
Paul

On 8/24/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
> > for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
> > would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
> > provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
> > plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
> > with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
> > The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
> > referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
> > operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
> >
> > I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
> > since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
> > geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
> > Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
> > name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
> > plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
> > and run a community site.
> >
> > Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
> > site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
> > to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
> > lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
> > can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
> > Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
> > discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
> > and rated by the community.
> >
> > With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
> > geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
> > heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
> > the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
> > I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
> > site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
> > onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
> > would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
> >
> > Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
> > and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
> > created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
> > Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
> > content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
> > look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
>
> Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think
> we should try to make these two sites work together rather than
> against one another. What are your thoughts on this?
>
> Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins
> and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer
> and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two
> complementary and easily confusing technologies?
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
> Castor - http://castor.org/
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

I can help with infra stuff. Please loop me in when you need it.

thanks,
dims

On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> +1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work.   (We'll need some help from the infra folks :)
>
> David Blevins wrote:
> > Everyone, please read and ACK.
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >
> >> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
> >> default option.
> >
> > I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His thoughts
> > are clear though.
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >>
> >> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> >> mind, would you?
> >
> > That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, is
> > there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/15/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> +1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work.   (We'll need some help from the infra folks :)

Um, I'm afraid I need to clarify my position.  If the Geronimo
community thinks it would be best to create and maintain an Apache
site and make it the default, I am certainly fine with that.  However,
personally, I don't think that's a good idea.  I don't see the point
in spending all the effort only to create a second site that has a
subset of the functionality of the first site (e.g. the same Apache
plugins but none of the non-Apache plugins).  Also, maintaining one
site is enough work and I'm not volunteering to help create or
maintain the Apache site, though of course I would be happy to answer
questions and give pointers to anyone who's going to do it.

Thanks,
    Aaron

> David Blevins wrote:
> > Everyone, please read and ACK.
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >
> >> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
> >> default option.
> >
> > I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His thoughts
> > are clear though.
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >>
> >> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> >> mind, would you?
> >
> > That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, is
> > there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> >
> > -David
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Sachin Patel <sp...@gmail.com>]

I can probably get you a contact from the Eclipse folks who run the  
Eclipse Plugin Central site, if you need/want any ideas, or answers  
to questions.

On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Paul McMahan wrote:

> Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
> for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
> would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
> provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
> plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
> with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
> The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
> referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
> operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
>
> I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
> since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
> geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
> Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
> name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
> plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
> and run a community site.
>
> Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
> site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
> to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
> lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
> can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
> Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
> discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
> and rated by the community.
>
> With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
> geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
> heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
> the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
> I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
> site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
> onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
> would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
>
> Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
> and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
> created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
> Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
> content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
> look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
>
> Looking forward to your feedback.
> Paul
>
>
> On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> +1 great idea Paul.
>>
>> Paul McMahan wrote:
>> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
>> > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
>> > discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
>> > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
>> > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion  
>> forums.  IMHO
>> > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
>> > building a healthy commercial and open source community around
>> > geronimo plugins.
>> >
>> > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
>> > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form  
>> used by
>> > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
>> > donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
>> > infrastructure@apache.org?
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
>> >> > the default option.
>> >>
>> >> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
>> >> thoughts are clear though.
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> >> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> >> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you  
>> put up a
>> >> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point  
>> it by
>> >> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron  
>> would not
>> >> > mind, would you?
>> >>
>> >> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In  
>> fact,
>> >> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>> >>
>> >> -David
>> >>
>> >>
>>


-sachin

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Jacek Laskowski <ja...@laskowski.net.pl>]

On 8/25/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:

> If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use
> geronimo.apache.org/plugins?

I don't think it's a requirement to run on ASF hardware, but a natural
solution - the closer the better.

All in all, your proposal is the best I've seen lately. Easy to
remember and noone would think it's hosted outside the project. I like
it so much that it's going to be profoundly hard to convince me to use
something else. Thanks Dain!

Jacek

-- 
Jacek Laskowski
http://www.laskowski.net.pl

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

Dain,  One additional aspect I just thought of is that the Geronimo
team might decide to someday create a plugin repository that is
equivalent to geronimoplugins.com at the location you mentioned
(geronimo.apache.org/plugins) for hosting plugins that are developed
by/for the Apache projects.  geronimoplugincentral.org would point at
the plugins hosted at that site, Aaron's site, commercial sites, Joe's
mom's site, etc...

Best wishes,
Paul

On 8/25/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on
> Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is
> important then I'm definitely game.  All of the software currently
> used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP,
> MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings.  But I am looking into some
> low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings
> since I'm really starting to feel the pain of "you get what you pay
> for" :-)   I don't know where infra draws the line on what software
> they'll agree to host on Apache hardware.
>
> Best wishes,
> Paul
>
> On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think they are competing but complimentary.  If I'm looking
> > > at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all
> > > plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused.  It then points to any
> > > number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully
> > > be the first of many).  At least for those that follow Eclipse the
> > > naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com).  So I see
> > > them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with
> > > another successful open source project.
> > >
> > > Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF
> > > infrastructure for the Geronimo project.  I think the
> > > geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it
> > > contains a variety of open source licensed code.
> > > Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse.
> >
> > If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use
> > geronimo.apache.org/plugins?
> >
> > -dain
> >
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Mario Ruebsam <ma...@googlemail.com>]

Paul McMahan wrote:
> I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on
> Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is
> important then I'm definitely game.  All of the software currently
> used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP,
> MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings.  But I am looking into some
> low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings
> since I'm really starting to feel the pain of "you get what you pay
> for" :-)   

Take a look, at Invision Power Board
http://www.invisionpower.com/ip.dynamic/products/board/index.html

The best I know for an affordable price. The SimpleForum is sometimes
really a pain even for small forums.

Thanks,
Mario

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

I don't necessarily think its a requirement for the site to run on
Apache hardware. But if the Geronimo dev community thinks this is
important then I'm definitely game.  All of the software currently
used to run the site is free/open source -- Apache HTTP, Joomla, PHP,
MySQL, SimpleForum, and xtdratings.  But I am looking into some
low-end commercial software to replace SimpleForum and xtdratings
since I'm really starting to feel the pain of "you get what you pay
for" :-)   I don't know where infra draws the line on what software
they'll agree to host on Apache hardware.

Best wishes,
Paul

On 8/24/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>
> > I don't think they are competing but complimentary.  If I'm looking
> > at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all
> > plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused.  It then points to any
> > number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully
> > be the first of many).  At least for those that follow Eclipse the
> > naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com).  So I see
> > them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with
> > another successful open source project.
> >
> > Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF
> > infrastructure for the Geronimo project.  I think the
> > geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it
> > contains a variety of open source licensed code.
> > Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse.
>
> If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use
> geronimo.apache.org/plugins?
>
> -dain
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:

> I don't think they are competing but complimentary.  If I'm looking  
> at it right the site Paul is proposing is a clearing house for all  
> plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused.  It then points to any  
> number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully  
> be the first of many).  At least for those that follow Eclipse the  
> naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com).  So I see  
> them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with  
> another successful open source project.
>
> Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF  
> infrastructure for the Geronimo project.  I think the  
> geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it  
> contains a variety of open source licensed code.   
> Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a warehouse.

If it is intended to run on apache hardware, then why not use  
geronimo.apache.org/plugins?

-dain

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Matt Hogstrom <ho...@apache.org>]

I don't think they are competing but complimentary.  If I'm looking at it right the site Paul is 
proposing is a clearing house for all plugin sites that is ASF Geronimo focused.  It then points to 
any number of other plugin sites (geronimoplugins.com would hopefully be the first of many).  At 
least for those that follow Eclipse the naming is similar as well (eclipseplugincentral.com).  So I 
see them as working together based on Paul's proposal and in line with another successful open 
source project.

Another difference is this site was intended to be hosted on ASF infrastructure for the Geronimo 
project.  I think the geronimoplugins.com site was specifically hosted externally as it contains a 
variety of open source licensed code.  Geronimoplugincentral.com is a clearing house and not a 
warehouse.



Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
>> for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
>> would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
>> provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
>> plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
>> with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
>> The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
>> referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
>> operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
>>
>> I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
>> since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
>> geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
>> Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
>> name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
>> plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
>> and run a community site.
>>
>> Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
>> site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
>> to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
>> lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
>> can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
>> Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
>> discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
>> and rated by the community.
>>
>> With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
>> geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
>> heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
>> the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
>> I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
>> site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
>> onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
>> would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
>>
>> Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
>> and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
>> created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
>> Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
>> content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
>> look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
> 
> Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think
> we should try to make these two sites work together rather than
> against one another. What are your thoughts on this?
> 
> Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins
> and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer
> and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two
> complementary and easily confusing technologies?
> 
> Bruce

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 8/24/06, Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
> for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
> would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
> provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
> plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
> with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
> The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
> referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
> operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
>
> I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
> since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
> geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
> Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
> name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
> plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
> and run a community site.
>
> Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
> site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
> to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
> lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
> can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
> Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
> discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
> and rated by the community.
>
> With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
> geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
> heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
> the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
> I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
> site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
> onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
> would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
>
> Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
> and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
> created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
> Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
> content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
> look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)

Have you spoken with Aaron regarding geronimoplugins.com yet? I think
we should try to make these two sites work together rather than
against one another. What are your thoughts on this?

Also, I understand that there's a difference between Geronimo plugins
and the Geronimo Eclipse plugin, but that's because I'm a committer
and involved. What are your thoughts on distinguishing these two
complementary and easily confusing technologies?

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Hernan Cunico <hc...@gmail.com>]

Hi Joe,
what are the problems you see with IE?

I mainly use Firefox but so far I can't tell the difference for what I 
tested with IE. Can you send me a link?

Cheers!
Hernan

Joe Bohn wrote:
> This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind 
> the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster 
> communication between plugin users.
> 
> I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a 
> plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new 
> plugin site registered?", etc...
> 
> I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers.  However, 
> there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well?  If 
> the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to 
> plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these 
> first ourselves).
> 
> One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely 
> has some formatting problems with IE.
> 
> Paul McMahan wrote:
>> Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
>> for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
>> would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
>> provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
>> plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
>> with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
>> The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
>> referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
>> operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
>>
>> I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
>> since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
>> geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
>> Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
>> name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
>> plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
>> and run a community site.
>>
>> Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
>> site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
>> to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
>> lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
>> can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
>> Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
>> discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
>> and rated by the community.
>>
>> With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
>> geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
>> heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
>> the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
>> I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
>> site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
>> onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
>> would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
>>
>> Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
>> and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
>> created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
>> Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
>> content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
>> look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 great idea Paul.
>>>
>>> Paul McMahan wrote:
>>> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
>>> > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
>>> > discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
>>> > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
>>> > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
>>> > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
>>> > building a healthy commercial and open source community around
>>> > geronimo plugins.
>>> >
>>> > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
>>> > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
>>> > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
>>> > donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
>>> > infrastructure@apache.org?
>>> >
>>> > Best wishes,
>>> > Paul
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> >> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
>>> >> > the default option.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
>>> >> thoughts are clear though.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> >> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>>> >> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>>> >> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>>> >> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron 
>>> would not
>>> >> > mind, would you?
>>> >>
>>> >> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
>>> >> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>>> >>
>>> >> -David
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
> 

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

On 8/24/06, Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind
> the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster
> communication between plugin users.
>
> I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a
> plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new
> plugin site registered?", etc...

I get the gist of what you're saying, which is that there are lots of
details to be worked out, and I agree. I think it is fortunate that
EclipsePluginCentral has already been around for a while and has a
well established community so when necessary we can always look to
their site for ideas.  Longer term I think there could be good synergy
between EclipsePluginCentral and GeronimoPluginCentral.  We have
communicated about Geronimo related effort and they even offered to
donate some of their custom site modules.

For your specific questions:
-  If plugins exist on multiple sites then there could either be a
review article for each instance or a single article that lists both
download locations if the metadata is otherwise the same for both.
-  For a content management system like Joomla (which is what drives
the site) handling new content submission is a bread and butter
activity. For example I assigned Author permission to your account so
now you should see a link on the Plugin Repositories page to add new
content.  I think there's a way to allow any registered user to submit
new content but I'm still figuring some things out.

> I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers.  However,
> there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well?  If
> the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to
> plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these
> first ourselves).

There's a Plugin Development discussion forum, and it would be easy to
set up a bigger area of the site dedicated to helping plugin
developers.  But that might be an area of overlap with what we use the
Geornimo wiki for, so for now I'm focused on the plugin directory and
the discussion forum.

> One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely
> has some formatting problems with IE.
>
> Paul McMahan wrote:
> > Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
> > for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
> > would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
> > provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
> > plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
> > with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
> > The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
> > referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
> > operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
> >
> > I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
> > since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
> > geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
> > Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
> > name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
> > plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
> > and run a community site.
> >
> > Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
> > site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
> > to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
> > lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
> > can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
> > Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
> > discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
> > and rated by the community.
> >
> > With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
> > geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
> > heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
> > the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
> > I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
> > site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
> > onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
> > would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
> >
> > Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
> > and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
> > created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
> > Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
> > content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
> > look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
> >
> > Looking forward to your feedback.
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 great idea Paul.
> >>
> >> Paul McMahan wrote:
> >> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
> >> > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
> >> > discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
> >> > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
> >> > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
> >> > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
> >> > building a healthy commercial and open source community around
> >> > geronimo plugins.
> >> >
> >> > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
> >> > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
> >> > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
> >> > donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
> >> > infrastructure@apache.org?
> >> >
> >> > Best wishes,
> >> > Paul
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> >> Everyone, please read and ACK.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
> >> >> > the default option.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
> >> >> thoughts are clear though.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> >> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> >> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> >> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> >> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would
> >> not
> >> >> > mind, would you?
> >> >>
> >> >> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
> >> >> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> >> >>
> >> >> -David
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>]

Strike my comment about IE.   It looks like I had set my viewing font to 
  "larger".  Doing this made some of the text on the initial page really 
large (such that it wrapped and the bottom of the chars on the first 
line were touching the top of the chars on the second line).  It also 
messed up the links to the actual plugins such that the "underlines" 
went thru the link name itself (like a low strike-through).   Anyway,l 
when I changed the view font back to "smallest" everything looks the 
same on IE as it appears on firefox.

Joe

Joe Bohn wrote:
> This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind 
> the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster 
> communication between plugin users.
> 
> I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a 
> plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new 
> plugin site registered?", etc...
> 
> I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers.  However, 
> there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well?  If 
> the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to 
> plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these 
> first ourselves).
> 
> One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely 
> has some formatting problems with IE.
> 
> Paul McMahan wrote:
> 
>> Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
>> for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
>> would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
>> provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
>> plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
>> with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
>> The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
>> referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
>> operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
>>
>> I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
>> since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
>> geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
>> Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
>> name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
>> plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
>> and run a community site.
>>
>> Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
>> site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
>> to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
>> lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
>> can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
>> Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
>> discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
>> and rated by the community.
>>
>> With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
>> geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
>> heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
>> the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
>> I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
>> site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
>> onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
>> would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
>>
>> Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
>> and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
>> created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
>> Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
>> content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
>> look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
>>
>> Looking forward to your feedback.
>> Paul
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 great idea Paul.
>>>
>>> Paul McMahan wrote:
>>> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
>>> > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
>>> > discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
>>> > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
>>> > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
>>> > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
>>> > building a healthy commercial and open source community around
>>> > geronimo plugins.
>>> >
>>> > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
>>> > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
>>> > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
>>> > donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
>>> > infrastructure@apache.org?
>>> >
>>> > Best wishes,
>>> > Paul
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>>> >> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
>>> >> > the default option.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
>>> >> thoughts are clear though.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> >> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>>> >> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>>> >> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>>> >> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron 
>>> would not
>>> >> > mind, would you?
>>> >>
>>> >> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
>>> >> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>>> >>
>>> >> -David
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Joe Bohn <jo...@earthlink.net>]

This looks good Paul and I think it can do a lot to get momentum behind 
the creation of plugins (and plugin sites) as well as foster 
communication between plugin users.

I do have some general curiosity questions like "What happens if a 
plugin exists on multiple sites?" and "What does it take to get a new 
plugin site registered?", etc...

I appears that the site is mostly focused on plugin consumers.  However, 
there are hints that it could be used by plugin creators as well?  If 
the latter is intended then perhaps we should include some more links to 
plugin development "how to's" (of course we would need to create these 
first ourselves).

One minor note ... the site looks great with Firefox but it definitely 
has some formatting problems with IE.

Paul McMahan wrote:
> Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
> for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
> would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
> provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
> plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
> with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
> The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
> referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
> operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.
> 
> I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
> since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
> geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
> Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
> name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
> plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
> and run a community site.
> 
> Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
> site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
> to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
> lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
> can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
> Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
> discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
> and rated by the community.
> 
> With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
> geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
> heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
> the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
> I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
> site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
> onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
> would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).
> 
> Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
> and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
> created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
> Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
> content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
> look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)
> 
> Looking forward to your feedback.
> Paul
> 
> 
> On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> +1 great idea Paul.
>>
>> Paul McMahan wrote:
>> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
>> > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
>> > discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
>> > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
>> > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
>> > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
>> > building a healthy commercial and open source community around
>> > geronimo plugins.
>> >
>> > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
>> > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
>> > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
>> > donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
>> > infrastructure@apache.org?
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Paul
>> >
>> >
>> > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> >> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
>> >> > the default option.
>> >>
>> >> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
>> >> thoughts are clear though.
>> >>
>> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> >> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> >> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> >> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>> >> >
>> >> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> >> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would 
>> not
>> >> > mind, would you?
>> >>
>> >> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
>> >> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>> >>
>> >> -David
>> >>
>> >>
>>
> 
> 

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

Hey folks.  This thread about Geronimo plugin sites has been inactive
for a while, but during that discussion I made a suggestion that it
would be great if Geronimo could provide a plugin site like Eclipse
provides at Eclipse Plugin Central.  This Eclipse plugin site is not a
plugin "repository" per se but more like a community building site
with discussion forums and system for reviewing and rating plugins.
The actual plugins are hosted elsewhere and their download location is
referenced from the plugin articles.  The Eclipse plugin site is
operated and governed by the Eclipse Foundation.

I was really excited about creating this type of site for Geronimo
since I think it would be a great compliment to sites like
geronimoplugins.com and it would really help involve/motivate the
Geronimo development community at large.  So I purchased the domain
name geronimoplugincentral.org to match the format of the Eclipse
plugin site and got some advice from the Eclipse guys on how to create
and run a community site.

Now I have a rough working version of the Geronimo plugin community
site available at http://geronimoplugincentral.org/ that I would love
to get your feedback on.  It is definitely a work in progress and has
lots of rough edges, but I hope it gets across the main idea of what
can be accomplished with some further work and direction from the
Geronimo community.  Like the Eclipse plugin site it has a plugin
discussion forum and a plugin directory where plugins can be reviewed
and rated by the community.

With Bruce Snyder's help I offered to donate the
geronimoplugincentral.org domain name to ASF last June but haven't
heard back from infra@ on that yet.  If there's general agreement in
the Geronimo community that this site is (or can be) A Good Thing then
I would like to offer full ownership and operational control of this
site to the Geronimo PMC.  I'm also ready/willing to migrate the site
onto ASF hardware if that's desirable (although I'm not sure how they
would react to MySQL and Joomla :-).

Of course I am also volunteering my time to finish setting up the site
and to help administer it when its ready for the masses.  Hernan
created the look and feel for the site based on the work he did in the
Geronimo website and wiki, and has volunteered to help keep the
content organized.  I'm sure he would love to get your feedback on the
look and feel, graphics, etc  ;-)

Looking forward to your feedback.
Paul


On 6/19/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1 great idea Paul.
>
> Paul McMahan wrote:
> > There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
> > eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
> > discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
> > files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
> > also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
> > the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
> > building a healthy commercial and open source community around
> > geronimo plugins.
> >
> > The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
> > "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
> > "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
> > donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
> > infrastructure@apache.org?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> >> Everyone, please read and ACK.
> >>
> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> >>
> >> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
> >> > the default option.
> >>
> >> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
> >> thoughts are clear though.
> >>
> >> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >> >
> >> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> >> > mind, would you?
> >>
> >> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
> >> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> >>
> >> -David
> >>
> >>
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

+1 great idea Paul.

Paul McMahan wrote:
> There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
> eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
> discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
> files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
> also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
> the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
> building a healthy commercial and open source community around
> geronimo plugins.
> 
> The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
> "geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
> "eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
> donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
> infrastructure@apache.org?
> 
> Best wishes,
> Paul
> 
> 
> On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>
>> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
>> > the default option.
>>
>> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
>> thoughts are clear though.
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>> >
>> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> > mind, would you?
>>
>> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
>> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>>
>> -David
>>
>>

Fwd: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

Forwarding request to infra@ list.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 19, 2006 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of
a Release Manager)
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org


There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
building a healthy commercial and open source community around
geronimo plugins.

The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
"geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
"eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
infrastructure@apache.org?


-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Paul McMahan <pa...@gmail.com>]

There's an interesting plugin site for eclipse at
eclipseplugincentral.com that implements some of the ideas we have
discussed.  It provides a directory of plugins but not the actual
files themselves, pointing elsewhere for the purchase/download.  It
also provides a rating system, news page, and discussion forums.  IMHO
the geronimo project should strive to provide this type of site for
building a healthy commercial and open source community around
geronimo plugins.

The domain names "geronimoplugincentral.com" and
"geronimoplugincentral.org" were available and match the form used by
"eclipseplugincentral.com" so I purchased them and would like to
donate them to the ASF.  How can I do that?  Just send a note to
infrastructure@apache.org?

Best wishes,
Paul


On 6/14/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
> > the default option.
>
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
> thoughts are clear though.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >
> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> > mind, would you?
>
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>
> -David
>
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>]

-0, i do not see the need of maintaining two different sites for plugins,
unless no one will ever want a plugin with non ASL compatible dependencies.

As soon as the geronimoplugins.org site is administered by the geronimo
community,
I do not see any needs to host it at Apache.  This site has no brand or
advertising, and
if it is administered by the community, it will never have such a thing, so
why bother
having an ASL only repo ?

Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet


On 6/15/06, David Blevins <da...@visi.com> wrote:
>
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
> > Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over
> > the default option.
>
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His
> thoughts are clear though.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >
> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> > mind, would you?
>
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,
> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>
> -David
>
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over  
>> the default option.
>
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His  
> thoughts are clear though.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
>
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In  
> fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?

+1

-dain

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

["Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>]

David Blevins wrote:
>
> On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
>
>> David Blevins wrote:
>>> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over 
>>>> the default option.
>>>
>>> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His 
>>> thoughts are clear though.
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>>>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>>>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>>>
>>>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>>>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>>>> mind, would you?
>>>
>>> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, 
>>> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>>
>> A nice temporary solution.  I think that we can come up w/ something 
>> better than an either/or link to plugin servers.
>
> I know what you mean.  Maven has an ordered list of repos and there 
> isn't really a "default" sans the fact the list is seeded with 
> ibiblio.org.  We could seed with two or three repos if we had em.
It would be cool if we could leverage the Apache mirror system for 
plugins.  It would be cool if Maven came up with a wagon that could use 
the Apache mirror system for repos.


Regards,
Alan

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

On Jun 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Alan D. Cabrera wrote:

> David Blevins wrote:
>> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>>
>>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over  
>>> the default option.
>>
>> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His  
>> thoughts are clear though.
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>>
>>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would  
>>> not
>>> mind, would you?
>>
>> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In  
>> fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>
> A nice temporary solution.  I think that we can come up w/  
> something better than an either/or link to plugin servers.

I know what you mean.  Maven has an ordered list of repos and there  
isn't really a "default" sans the fact the list is seeded with  
ibiblio.org.  We could seed with two or three repos if we had em.

-David

> Regards,
> Alan
>
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

["Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>]

David Blevins wrote:
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the 
>> default option.
>
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His 
> thoughts are clear though.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
>
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, 
> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?

A nice temporary solution.  I think that we can come up w/ something 
better than an either/or link to plugin servers.



Regards,
Alan

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Geir Magnusson Jr <ge...@pobox.com>]

I agree with this - we'll fix the default in the next rev.  There have
been some good ideas (including mine, I think) and we'll see how they
work in code.

geir


David Blevins wrote:
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> 
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
>> default option.
> 
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His thoughts
> are clear though.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
> 
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, is
> there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> 
> -David
> 
> 

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[David Jencks <da...@yahoo.com>]

+1
david jencks

On Jun 14, 2006, at 5:11 PM, David Blevins wrote:

> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over  
>> the default option.
>
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His  
> thoughts are clear though.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
>
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In  
> fact, is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>
> -David
>

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

+1 Aaron and I will work to make the Apache site work.   (We'll need some help from the infra folks :)

David Blevins wrote:
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> 
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the 
>> default option.
> 
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His thoughts 
> are clear though.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
> 
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, is 
> there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> 
> -David
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

+1

David Blevins wrote:
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
> 
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the
>> default option.
> 
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His thoughts
> are clear though.
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
> 
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, is
> there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
> 
> -David

Re: [CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>]

David Blevins wrote:
> Everyone, please read and ACK.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:
>
>> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the 
>> default option.
>
> I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His 
> thoughts are clear though.
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
>
> That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact, 
> is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?
>
> -David
>
>
+1

John

[CONSENSUS] Default plugin site (was Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager)

[David Blevins <da...@visi.com>]

Everyone, please read and ACK.

On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:31 PM, John Sisson wrote:

> Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over  
> the default option.

I think Hiram does too, he just a read a little too fast.  His  
thoughts are clear though.

On Jun 14, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Hiram Chirino wrote:
> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>
> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> mind, would you?

That pretty much sums it up for me.  Aaron seems to agree.  In fact,  
is there anyone out there who doesn't agree?

-David

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[John Sisson <jr...@gmail.com>]

Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the 
default option.  To give you and the list some insight into why I am 
concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private 
e-mail from Aaron after I started the "Questions about 
www.geronimoplugins.com" site thread on the dev list.  I didn't get any 
response to my mail.  I think we need to discuss these concerns and how 
they could be addressed.

Regards,
John

---------------------------------------------
Hi Aaron,

I like the concept of the plugins site. I get concerned when important 
things like this aren't discussed openly before being implemented.

I'm pretty sure you weren't planning on doing anything nasty, but I am 
more concerned (with my ASF hat on) with some of the issues that may be 
encountered in the future such as:

- Arguments over why an external site was made the default instead of an 
ASF site, possibly giving the owners of the site a financial advantage 
(e.g. advertising on the site etc.)  I have no problems with you having 
your own plugins site, but if it is the default, it is though the ASF is 
endorsing it and giving you an advantage over anyone else who would like 
to do the same.
- Concern whether in the long run the site can continue to afford the 
bandwidth, maintenance etc without charging for it
- What is there to stop you getting nasty if things go sour?  What would 
the impact on Geronimo be if that happened considering you would have a 
reasonable amount of traffic/exposure going to your plugins site?

In a perfect world I wouldn't have these concerns..

One way some of these concerns could be overcome is to have non ASF code 
hosted in an "open" hosting environment where an individual/company does 
not hold the keys to the site.

If you want to chat more, you can contact me via IRC or my yahoo ID 
********** but I would prefer this to be discussed openly.

Regards,

John


Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
>
> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put 
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
>> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised 
>> at that one.  Let's be
>> consistent in our interpretations.
>>
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was 
>> going
>> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
>> >
>> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
>> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
>> > beating a dead horse here...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bruce
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Sure.  I especially look forward to the constructive feedback from
users.  I have some thoughts to add to that thread that came from a
user at one of our recent talks.

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 6/14/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I started this thread and at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness.
>
> Aaron, I for one would like to say that my frustration that started the monster was fueled by about
> 3 hours sleep and the right combination of responses on the thread.  I can't say the frustrations
> weren't real as they were but I think the thread has gotten off track.
>
> You are not an evil immoral person.  You're a smart and creative developer that I imagine is more
> focused on doing than perhaps taking other things into consideration.  I forget to shave, I have
> lapses in judgement and I imagine there are those that can say I use colourful language that is not
> normally part of my vocabulary.  Am I evil and immoral, no (at least I hope not).
>
> At this point I'd like us all to walk away from the thread with some food for thought and some
> changes in the way we interact.  Could I have been more pedantic on dates for the release?
> Administration was not one of the gifts I received.  Could you have communicated the geronimoplugins
> thing earlier and solicited feedback; sure.
>
> I'll offer this olive branch if your willing.  Let's work together to get the couple of things that
> make sense for Apache as plugins setup on our site.  Let's fix the problem Dain so aptly pointed out
> that we are beating to death and could have solved 10 times.  I got some really good feedback on the
> plugins from a customer, er... hmmm..., a user, yeah that's it, a user :) that they thought would
> make it really useful to them.  I'll start a separate thread on that.
>
> As the policeman said at the scene of the accident, "Ok folks, move along, there is nothing to see
> here anymore."
>
> Matt
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >>
> >> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> >> mind, would you?
> >
> > Of course not.
> >
> >> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
> >> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
> >> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
> >> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
> >> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?
> >
> > You are not wrong.
> >
> > It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for
> > providing a solution that the project needs.  I am utterly baffled by
> > why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a
> > charity effort.  And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how
> > putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying
> > that my contributions outweight anybody else's.  Finally, it's not at
> > all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap.
> >
> > Jeff, I must be stupid.  Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm
> > immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my
> > contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to
> > reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >   Aaron
> >
> >> On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> > > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would
> >> either?
> >> >
> >> > I think Matt was trying to make a point.
> >> >
> >> > I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
> >> > here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
> >> > what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
> >> > each other.
> >> >
> >> > Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
> >> > clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
> >> > that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
> >> > moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
> >> > server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
> >> > just me.
> >> >
> >> > To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
> >> > server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user,
> >> developer,
> >> > Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
> >> > default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity
> >> effort
> >> > without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
> >> > exploited...again maybe that's just me.
> >> >
> >> > I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
> >> > project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
> >> > the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
> >> > rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
> >> > community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
> >> >
> >> > That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
> >> > had to offer up why it bothers me.
> >> >
> >> > Thats my penny's worth ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Jeff
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> > >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
> >> > >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> >> > >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
> >> > >> at that one.  Let's be
> >> > >> consistent in our interpretations.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> > >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> > >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he
> >> was
> >> > >> going
> >> > >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> >> > >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> >> > >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and
> >> needed...communication.  Lets
> >> > >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> >> > >> > beating a dead horse here...
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> Bruce
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Hiram
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

I had to re-read that one a couple of times :)

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> sure.  I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of
>> the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good!
>>
> 
> lol... geez.. I always hit send way too quick!
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> sure.  I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of
> the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good!
>

lol... geez.. I always hit send way too quick!

-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > Hi Jeff,
> >
> > All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> > http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> > http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >
> > Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> > default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> > mind, would you?
> >
> > We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
> > dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
> > think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
> > friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
> > that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?
>
> That is a great question.  If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio
> of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster.
>  The key missing component was the discussion ;-)
>
> I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or
> lack thereof regarding this site.
>

Cool, I'm glad we are getting over this non-issue.

The thing that worries me most about working in the Geronimo community
is that it seems that folks a quick to assume the worst out of the
contributors the project!  I have no clue why this happens.  I'm not
sure.  I hope we can get into a mode of giving folks the benefit of
the doubt and if they screw up they I flame them good!

> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
>
> >
> > Regards,
> > Hiram
> >
> > On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
> >>
> >> I think Matt was trying to make a point.
> >>
> >> I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
> >> here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
> >> what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
> >> each other.
> >>
> >> Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
> >> clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
> >> that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
> >> moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
> >> server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
> >> just me.
> >>
> >> To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
> >> server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer,
> >> Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
> >> default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort
> >> without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
> >> exploited...again maybe that's just me.
> >>
> >> I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
> >> project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
> >> the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
> >> rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
> >> community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
> >>
> >> That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
> >> had to offer up why it bothers me.
> >>
> >> Thats my penny's worth ;-)
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
> >> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> >> >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
> >> >> at that one.  Let's be
> >> >> consistent in our interpretations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was
> >> >> going
> >> >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> >> >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> >> >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.
> >> Lets
> >> >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> >> >> > beating a dead horse here...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Bruce
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 
> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> default at some Apache machines by default?

That would mean a) someone would need to set up and maintain
that, and (more importantly) b) the default location would
necessarily exclude any plugins not licensed under the Apache
licence.  Would it be a good idea to exclude those from being
listed at the default site?
- --
#ken	P-)}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRJFjc5rNPMCpn3XdAQJz3wQArIgmJK/0pH4tiKEJoosLV48L5i6cIaOT
A88ZAA0BigHVZCOAsTRhRYv+oNVdkbZCgS1V1wnlqxBV6bINQHhy/D1m6SZ9hJfy
VY69Tf9U3Ncy1dzOARLibG6bvdH8V2Eeq1wbdkzkUF8JET0kKH6w+zhiJpYHhU/U
rTUdxhs9UzY=
=JQUs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

I started this thread and at this point I think it has outlived its usefulness.

Aaron, I for one would like to say that my frustration that started the monster was fueled by about 
3 hours sleep and the right combination of responses on the thread.  I can't say the frustrations 
weren't real as they were but I think the thread has gotten off track.

You are not an evil immoral person.  You're a smart and creative developer that I imagine is more 
focused on doing than perhaps taking other things into consideration.  I forget to shave, I have 
lapses in judgement and I imagine there are those that can say I use colourful language that is not 
normally part of my vocabulary.  Am I evil and immoral, no (at least I hope not).

At this point I'd like us all to walk away from the thread with some food for thought and some 
changes in the way we interact.  Could I have been more pedantic on dates for the release? 
Administration was not one of the gifts I received.  Could you have communicated the geronimoplugins 
thing earlier and solicited feedback; sure.

I'll offer this olive branch if your willing.  Let's work together to get the couple of things that 
make sense for Apache as plugins setup on our site.  Let's fix the problem Dain so aptly pointed out 
that we are beating to death and could have solved 10 times.  I got some really good feedback on the 
plugins from a customer, er... hmmm..., a user, yeah that's it, a user :) that they thought would 
make it really useful to them.  I'll start a separate thread on that.

As the policeman said at the scene of the accident, "Ok folks, move along, there is nothing to see 
here anymore."

Matt

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
> 
> Of course not.
> 
>> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
>> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
>> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
>> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
>> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?
> 
> You are not wrong.
> 
> It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for
> providing a solution that the project needs.  I am utterly baffled by
> why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a
> charity effort.  And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how
> putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying
> that my contributions outweight anybody else's.  Finally, it's not at
> all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap.
> 
> Jeff, I must be stupid.  Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm
> immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my
> contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to
> reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository.
> 
> Thanks,
>   Aaron
> 
>> On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> > > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would 
>> either?
>> >
>> > I think Matt was trying to make a point.
>> >
>> > I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
>> > here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
>> > what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
>> > each other.
>> >
>> > Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
>> > clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
>> > that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
>> > moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
>> > server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
>> > just me.
>> >
>> > To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
>> > server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, 
>> developer,
>> > Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
>> > default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity 
>> effort
>> > without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
>> > exploited...again maybe that's just me.
>> >
>> > I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
>> > project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
>> > the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
>> > rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
>> > community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
>> >
>> > That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
>> > had to offer up why it bothers me.
>> >
>> > Thats my penny's worth ;-)
>> >
>> > Jeff
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> > >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
>> > >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
>> > >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
>> > >> at that one.  Let's be
>> > >> consistent in our interpretations.
>> > >>
>> > >> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> > >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he 
>> was
>> > >> going
>> > >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> > >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> > >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and 
>> needed...communication.  Lets
>> > >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
>> > >> > beating a dead horse here...
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> Bruce
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree with Jeff that 'whining' is an inappropriate typification
of what has been happening here -- particularly since the discussion
has been fed by specific requests.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 
> It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for
> providing a solution that the project needs.  I am utterly baffled by
> why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a
> charity effort.  And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how
> putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying
> that my contributions outweight anybody else's.  Finally, it's not at
> all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap.
> 
> Jeff, I must be stupid.  Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm
> immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my
> contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to
> reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository.

I also think there are posts that are phrased with loaded language
and drip with excess drama.  My personal opinion.
- --
#ken	P-|}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRJFsB5rNPMCpn3XdAQLAdgP9HJjtSs99nYH8J0ouhtS9T27H4HaPoI3I
itbsGOarE5g/MPVK7h42HVQrGexajsVIvVgPsjjWsEKGJWPyefSCYH7VHSz1/3NB
xiocK+d+uXJma+Fcp3BC9/Di2edbb1OAA7fCr+RbAp0Q51YZOOTP0akTcGNswGBy
s4++EHgJWIo=
=Xle3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/14/06, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>
> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> mind, would you?

Of course not.

> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?

You are not wrong.

It's extremely difficult for me to understand how I am immoral for
providing a solution that the project needs.  I am utterly baffled by
why this is considered to a commercial site taking advantage of a
charity effort.  And needless to say, I am totally at a loss for how
putting the work into providing a plugin repository equates to saying
that my contributions outweight anybody else's.  Finally, it's not at
all clear to me what rewards the repository host will reap.

Jeff, I must be stupid.  Explain to me like I'm a two year old why I'm
immoral, taking advantage of a charity effort, indicating that my
contributions outweight anybody's, and please please, tell me how to
reap the rewards of operating a Maven 2 repository.

Thanks,
   Aaron

> On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
> >
> > I think Matt was trying to make a point.
> >
> > I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
> > here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
> > what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
> > each other.
> >
> > Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
> > clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
> > that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
> > moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
> > server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
> > just me.
> >
> > To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
> > server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer,
> > Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
> > default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort
> > without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
> > exploited...again maybe that's just me.
> >
> > I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
> > project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
> > the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
> > rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
> > community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
> >
> > That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
> > had to offer up why it bothers me.
> >
> > Thats my penny's worth ;-)
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> > >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
> > >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> > >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
> > >> at that one.  Let's be
> > >> consistent in our interpretations.
> > >>
> > >> Jeff Genender wrote:
> > >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
> > >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was
> > >> going
> > >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> > >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> > >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> > >> >
> > >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
> > >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> > >> > beating a dead horse here...
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >> Bruce
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/14/06, Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Funnily enough, GMail had this to offer at the top of my mail window:
>
> "The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney
>
> (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltdisney131640.html)
>
> :)

Actually I saw that Web Clip earlier this week for this very thread :-).

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Brett Porter <br...@gmail.com>]

Funnily enough, GMail had this to offer at the top of my mail window:

"The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing." - Walt Disney

(http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/waltdisney131640.html)

:)

- Brett

On 15/06/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> > I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding.  If you
> > ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
> > alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down
> > and put together a site.  At that point we have have an open
> > discussion on the default link.  We had a nice open discussion about
> > the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site
> > was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state
> > changes, I expect the default to change.
> >
> > Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers.
>
> I tend to agree with these sentiments. The poor interactions on the
> project lately have deteriorated far enough. What I really don't
> understand is why so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction to
> occurrences in the project anymore. It's as if everyone must interject
> their opinion into every discussion no matter whether it adds value or
> not. Face it, none of us can be aware of every single thing that is
> being done within Geronimo. It's simply too big to mind every little
> thing and be a part of every single point.
>
> I also say enough jumping on the bandwagon to bash someone and what
> they didn't do. Let's try to focus on the positives and if there are
> negatives, talk about solutions instead of just bitching about the
> problem because it's just not productive.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
> Castor - http://castor.org/
>


-- 
Apache Maven - http://maven.apache.org
"Better Builds with Maven" book - http://library.mergere.com/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding.  If you
> ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
> alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down
> and put together a site.  At that point we have have an open
> discussion on the default link.  We had a nice open discussion about
> the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site
> was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state
> changes, I expect the default to change.
>
> Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers.

I tend to agree with these sentiments. The poor interactions on the
project lately have deteriorated far enough. What I really don't
understand is why so many people have such a knee-jerk reaction to
occurrences in the project anymore. It's as if everyone must interject
their opinion into every discussion no matter whether it adds value or
not. Face it, none of us can be aware of every single thing that is
being done within Geronimo. It's simply too big to mind every little
thing and be a part of every single point.

I also say enough jumping on the bandwagon to bash someone and what
they didn't do. Let's try to focus on the positives and if there are
negatives, talk about solutions instead of just bitching about the
problem because it's just not productive.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

+1

On 6/14/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding.  If you
> ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
> alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down
> and put together a site.  At that point we have have an open
> discussion on the default link.  We had a nice open discussion about
> the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site
> was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state
> changes, I expect the default to change.
>
> Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers.
>
> -dain
>
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
>
> > Hiram Chirino wrote:
> >> Hi Jeff,
> >>
> >> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> >> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> >>
> >> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> >> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> >> mind, would you?
> >>
> >> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
> >> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
> >> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
> >> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
> >> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I
> >> wrong?
> >
> > That is a great question.  If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio
> > of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed
> > muster.
> >  The key missing component was the discussion ;-)
> >
> > I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to
> > entry, or
> > lack thereof regarding this site.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jeff
>
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Blog: http://hiramchirino.com

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

+1

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding.  If you 
> ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an 
> alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and 
> put together a site.  At that point we have have an open discussion on 
> the default link.  We had a nice open discussion about the default link 
> a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there 
> is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the 
> default to change.
> 
> Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers.
> 
> -dain
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>>
>>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>>> mind, would you?
>>>
>>> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
>>> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
>>> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
>>> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
>>> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?
>>
>> That is a great question.  If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio
>> of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster.
>>  The key missing component was the discussion ;-)
>>
>> I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or
>> lack thereof regarding this site.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding.  If you
> ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an
> alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down and
> put together a site.  At that point we have have an open discussion on
> the default link.  We had a nice open discussion about the default link
> a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site was fine since there
> is only one site available, and when this state changes, I expect the
> default to change.
> 

Perfect example of our "excellent" communication skills.  "Whining" vs
coding?  Where does what occurred have anything to do with coding?  This
is a total obfuscation of the issue entirely.  The issue is
communication...communication...communication...not the plugins site.  I
truly have a problem expressing this, don't I?

> Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers.
> 
> -dain
> 
> On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:
> 
>> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>
>>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>>
>>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>>> mind, would you?
>>>
>>> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
>>> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
>>> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
>>> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
>>> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?
>>
>> That is a great question.  If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio
>> of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster.
>>  The key missing component was the discussion ;-)
>>
>> I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or
>> lack thereof regarding this site.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

I see a lot of whining in this thread an not a lot of coding.  If you  
ask me, if Jeff, John or anyone in the projects feels that we need an  
alternative to the javaplugins site, all they have to do is sit down  
and put together a site.  At that point we have have an open  
discussion on the default link.  We had a nice open discussion about  
the default link a while back and concluded it the javaplugins site  
was fine since there is only one site available, and when this state  
changes, I expect the default to change.

Frankly, I think it is time to separate the talkers from the doers.

-dain

On Jun 14, 2006, at 4:11 PM, Jeff Genender wrote:

> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
>> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
>>
>> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
>> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
>> mind, would you?
>>
>> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
>> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
>> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
>> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
>> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I  
>> wrong?
>
> That is a great question.  If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio
> of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed  
> muster.
>  The key missing component was the discussion ;-)
>
> I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to  
> entry, or
> lack thereof regarding this site.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
> http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.
> 
> Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
> default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
> mind, would you?
> 
> We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
> dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
> think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
> friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
> that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?

That is a great question.  If Aaron's intention was to make an ibiblio
of sorts, this could have been discussed and it may have passed muster.
 The key missing component was the discussion ;-)

I am surely interested in intent...the goals...the barriers to entry, or
lack thereof regarding this site.

Thanks,

Jeff


> 
> Regards,
> Hiram
> 
> On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hiram Chirino wrote:
>> > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
>>
>> I think Matt was trying to make a point.
>>
>> I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
>> here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
>> what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
>> each other.
>>
>> Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
>> clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
>> that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
>> moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
>> server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
>> just me.
>>
>> To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
>> server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer,
>> Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
>> default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort
>> without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
>> exploited...again maybe that's just me.
>>
>> I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
>> project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
>> the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
>> rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
>> community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
>>
>> That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
>> had to offer up why it bothers me.
>>
>> Thats my penny's worth ;-)
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
>> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
>> >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
>> >> at that one.  Let's be
>> >> consistent in our interpretations.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was
>> >> going
>> >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
>> >> >
>> >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication. 
>> Lets
>> >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
>> >> > beating a dead horse here...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Bruce
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

Hi Jeff,

All I'm saying is I don't care if IBM puts up
http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins, I also don't care if you put up a
http://virtuas.com/geronimo/plugins site.

Now the default link issue is something else.  Can we point it by
default at some Apache machines by default?  I'm sure Aaron would not
mind, would you?

We do things like this all the time.  Our maven builds are TOTALLY
dependent on non asf hardware.  If ibiblio or codehaus go down, I
think we would have some serious issues trying to build geronino and
friends.  And I may be wrong but I think Aaron's site was similar in
that it was just providing free hosting for artifacts.  Or an I wrong?

Regards,
Hiram

On 6/14/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Hiram Chirino wrote:
> > I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
>
> I think Matt was trying to make a point.
>
> I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
> here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
> what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
> each other.
>
> Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
> clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
> that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
> moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
> server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
> just me.
>
> To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
> server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer,
> Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
> default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort
> without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
> exploited...again maybe that's just me.
>
> I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
> project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
> the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
> rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
> community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.
>
> That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
> had to offer up why it bothers me.
>
> Thats my penny's worth ;-)
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> >> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
> >> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> >> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
> >> at that one.  Let's be
> >> consistent in our interpretations.
> >>
> >> Jeff Genender wrote:
> >> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was
> >> going
> >> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> >> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> >> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> >> >
> >> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
> >> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> >> > beating a dead horse here...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Bruce
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?

I think Matt was trying to make a point.

I respect the fact that it does not bother you, but it bothers others
here.  That, in-and-of itself, should be enough to stop and think about
what we are doing as a team...and think about how our actions affect
each other.

Although injecting that site into G may not be "wrong" per-se, it
clearly falls in a gray area that should have raised enough discomfort
that discussion probably should have preceded the action.  Call me a
moral guy, but I would have lost sleep if I placed "virtuas.com" in the
server as the default plugin site without any discussion...but that is
just me.

To be more poignant, this is supposed to be an open source application
server.  It's probably not fair to any other committer, user, developer,
Apache member, what have you...if someone's commercial site becomes a
default link in something that is supposed to represent a charity effort
without open discussion.  I think people perceive that they are being
exploited...again maybe that's just me.

I don't believe Aaron's contributions outweigh anyone else's on this
project, and I think anyone/everyone should have an opportunity to be
the default site.  So if we feel as a team that Aaron should reap the
rewards of being a default plugin, then its a decision we, as a
community/group/team, need to come to consensus on.

That may not help you understand why it would bother anyone else, but I
had to offer up why it bothers me.

Thats my penny's worth ;-)

Jeff



> 
> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put
>> http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
>> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised
>> at that one.  Let's be
>> consistent in our interpretations.
>>
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was
>> going
>> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
>> >
>> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
>> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
>> > beating a dead horse here...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bruce
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?

On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins
> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one.  Let's be
> consistent in our interpretations.
>
> Jeff Genender wrote:
> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was going
> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> >
> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> > beating a dead horse here...
> >
> >
> >> Bruce
> >
> >
> >
>


-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was going
> > to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>
> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> explaining the work he was doing on the code?

But... there was no work on the code.  All I did was add
configs/src/plan/geronimo-plugin.xml to the 4 directory-related
configs (directory, ldap-realm, ldap-demo-jetty and ldap-demo-tomcat).
 And then put the CAR files on the plugin site so instead of requiring
someone to manually locate the various module files and deployment
plans and 20 prerequisite JARs and apply them all in the correct
order, you can click through the console (or deploy tool) and it does
the heavy lifting for you.

I guess I fixed a bug in the POM too where ldap-realm didn't depend on
directory, or something like that.

Thanks,
    Aaron

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put http://www.ibm.com/wasce/plugins 
as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised at that one.  Let's be 
consistent in our interpretations.

Jeff Genender wrote:
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was going
>>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
> 
> I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
> go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
> beating a dead horse here...
> 
> 
>> Bruce
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was going
>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
> 
> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
> explaining the work he was doing on the code?

I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
beating a dead horse here...


> 
> Bruce

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was going
> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.

So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
explaining the work he was doing on the code?

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Comment below...

Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
>> >> integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com.  But
>> >> out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
>> >> and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt
>> about
>> >> taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and
>> spend
>> >> my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate.
>> >> It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end
>> up on
>> >> the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine.  I
>> >> hope that makes sense...
>> >
>> > Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got
>> > reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter
>> > and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing?
>> > Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand
>> > this sentiment.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bruce,
>>
>> Perhaps I am not being very good at communicating...let me paste what I
>> wrote before, and you can perhaps show me the error of my feelings...
>>
>> "Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this,
>> it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put
>> together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have
>> had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its
>> more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO."
>>
>> The words I am trying to convey here are "ethical, respect, and
>> prudent".  Being that we are all friends, I think we can abide by the
>> spirit of the law, rather than the letter.  Would you agree?
> 
> Well I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this
> topic. I don't care if my code is reused, twisted, refactored, deleted
> or otherwise. When I apply the Apache License to my code, I hope that
> others reuse it in some way. I actually do consider this reuse ethical
> and respectful. I take it as the highest complement that someone would
> reuse my code because it means that I saved them the trouble of
> reinventing the wheel.
> 
> I think that it's our interpretations that differ. Are you simply
> looking for a tip of the hat type of thing or something more?
> 

No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was going
to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.

> Bruce

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
> >> integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com.  But
> >> out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
> >> and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about
> >> taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend
> >> my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate.
> >> It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on
> >> the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine.  I
> >> hope that makes sense...
> >
> > Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got
> > reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter
> > and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing?
> > Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand
> > this sentiment.
>
>
>
> Bruce,
>
> Perhaps I am not being very good at communicating...let me paste what I
> wrote before, and you can perhaps show me the error of my feelings...
>
> "Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this,
> it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put
> together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have
> had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its
> more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO."
>
> The words I am trying to convey here are "ethical, respect, and
> prudent".  Being that we are all friends, I think we can abide by the
> spirit of the law, rather than the letter.  Would you agree?

Well I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this
topic. I don't care if my code is reused, twisted, refactored, deleted
or otherwise. When I apply the Apache License to my code, I hope that
others reuse it in some way. I actually do consider this reuse ethical
and respectful. I take it as the highest complement that someone would
reuse my code because it means that I saved them the trouble of
reinventing the wheel.

I think that it's our interpretations that differ. Are you simply
looking for a tip of the hat type of thing or something more?

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
>> integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com.  But
>> out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
>> and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about
>> taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend
>> my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate.
>> It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on
>> the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine.  I
>> hope that makes sense...
> 
> Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got
> reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter
> and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing?
> Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand
> this sentiment.



Bruce,

Perhaps I am not being very good at communicating...let me paste what I
wrote before, and you can perhaps show me the error of my feelings...

"Although nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this,
it would have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put
together the example applications and the Directory integration, to have
had some discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its
more of a ethical and respect issue, IMHO."

The words I am trying to convey here are "ethical, respect, and
prudent".  Being that we are all friends, I think we can abide by the
spirit of the law, rather than the letter.  Would you agree?

Jeff

> 
> Bruce

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:

> There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
> integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com.  But
> out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
> and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about
> taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend
> my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate.
> It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on
> the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine.  I
> hope that makes sense...

Some code that you wrote and licensed using the Apache License got
reused and you find it demoralizing? This is completely in the letter
and the spirit of the Apace License. How is such reuse demoralizing?
Not only is this legal, it's encouraged. Please help me understand
this sentiment.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me.  This has
>> nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue.  The point
>> here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
>> clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have
>> been involved in.  Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone
>> talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it
>> occurred.
> 
> Um...  OK.  I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was
> that big a deal.  If it bothered you, I'm sorry.  Let's talk about it.
> What do you recommend?  The constraints I see are that is should be
> able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code.  Do you agree?
> Disagree?  What do you recommend for a hosting site?

Lets make this another thread...I have several thoughts on this.  Thanks
for asking.

> 
>> This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the
>> Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up
>> into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from
>> others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.
> 
> I find this extra-confusing.  I took a piece of Geronimo which was
> hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it
> a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or
> not as you please).  And you feel that as the primary author of the
> code, you should have been consulted?  That I'm somehow using your own
> hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a
> whole?  I'm sorry for offending you.  But I don't understand your
> objection.

There is no obligation for you to consult me to take the Directory
integration, re-package it, and place it on geronimoplugins.com.  But
out of basic respect, opening up the discussion of others on the idea,
and then yes, as your friend, and colleague, asking me how I felt about
taking the package and placing it on gp.com (which I did write and spend
my time putting together), probably would have been most appropriate.
It is kind of demoralizing for me to see the work that I did, end up on
the geronoimplugins site w/o discussion from a colleague of mine.  I
hope that makes sense...

> 
>> Although
>> nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would
>> have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the
>> example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some
>> discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its more of a
>> ethical and respect issue, IMHO.
> 
> I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples,
> LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution.  The Java 5 stack trace
> in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been
> working hard to slim down our distributions.  I am pretty sure we
> agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while.
> But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is
> showing disrespect.  We're all in this together, and it's not your
> code or my code, it's our code.  I promise, if you make the console
> more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be
> offended, I'll buy you a beer.
> 

Yes...nothing wrong with the removal.  It was the sudden appearance on
geronimoplugins.com that I took issue with.  This was purely a
communication thing for me.

>> As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant
>> discussion with others before taking action.
> 
> Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion.  Sorry it wasn't
> sooner, but better late than never, eh?
> 

Yes, and thanks for acknowledging this.

>> Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
>> after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
>> with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
>> to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
>> stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a
>> bit.
> 
> Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to
> the list.  :)  Sorry.
> 

Its ok...we sometimes read into things deeper than we should.  As I have
told you on the side, and I will publicly state again...I meant nothing
by this negatively.  It was a cut and paste from the publicly available
whois database, and assumed it was purely public...and I certainly did
not know it was your address (I assumed it may have been an office or
other), but in retrospect, I agree I shouldn't have done that and I
apologized publicly for it.


>> I attended for a total of about an hour.  I am speaking from hearsay
>> here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed?  I was told
>> by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting.
>>
>> This in-and-of-itself is the issue.  Knowing Geir was in town, and
>> especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a
>> speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time
>> understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event.  JavaOne
>> is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all
>> should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings
>> (positive or negative) about each other.  For those who could not
>> attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged.  This should have
>> been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed
>> not everyone was there.
>>
>> We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our
>> dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and
>> Geronimo.  We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.
> 
> I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not
> invited, Geir and others.  True, it would have been smart to arrange a
> dial-in.  Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved
> as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be
> overlooked either.  If the outcome of this is that no one should have
> a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that
> (but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable).  I talked to
> another committer at a different conference recently, and we
> brainstormed some ideas for improving the product.  Was that wrong?
> Where's the line?  Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't?
> 
> If there was some policy, believe me, I'd work with it.
> 
> Perhaps we should organize a series of Geronimo community meetings,
> throughout the year, so we can address issues (like this) closer to
> when they come up, and there would be less motivation to set up
> individual meetings at conferences and things.  Would that help?
> Would you help organize such a thing?  I would.  We can try for
> something in Barcelona or Dublin, if that's not too soon.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please
>> elaborate
>> >> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> >> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless
>> dependencies,
>> >> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools,
>> the
>> >> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product
>> was
>> >> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> >> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> >> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> >> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this,
>> and I
>> >> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental
>> and
>> >> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> >> > move forward.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> >> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If
>> there
>> >> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> >> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web
>> site, etc
>> >> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I
>> missed
>> >> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> >> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a
>> week.  I
>> >> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> >> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> >> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> >> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> >> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build,
>> get it
>> >> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72
>> hours is
>> >> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't
>> feel
>> >> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> >> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2
>> and see
>> >> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> >> > try something different for the release after.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >    Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No
>> >> one can
>> >> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
>> >> there.  And
>> >> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines
>> we're
>> >> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
>> >> (i.e., a
>> >> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
>> >> help on
>> >> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a
>> popular
>> >> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
>> >> volunteer
>> >> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> >> > immensely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> >> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt
>> has
>> >> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
>> >> things
>> >> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
>> >> group
>> >> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> >> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> >> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
>> >> panacea.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
>> >> expect
>> >> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each
>> other in
>> >> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> >> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have
>> a long
>> >> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jeff
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would
>> be a
>> >> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline
>> will
>> >> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular
>> feature
>> >> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
>> >> determining
>> >> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
>> >> difficult.
>> >> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bruce
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me.  This has
>> nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue.  The point
>> here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
>> clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have
>> been involved in.  Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone
>> talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it 
>> occurred.
> 
> Um...  OK.  I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was
> that big a deal.  If it bothered you, I'm sorry.  Let's talk about it.
> What do you recommend?  The constraints I see are that is should be
> able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code.  Do you agree?
> Disagree?  What do you recommend for a hosting site?
> 
>> This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the
>> Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up
>> into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from
>> others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.
> 
> I find this extra-confusing.  I took a piece of Geronimo which was
> hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it
> a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or
> not as you please).  And you feel that as the primary author of the
> code, you should have been consulted?  That I'm somehow using your own
> hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a
> whole?  I'm sorry for offending you.  But I don't understand your
> objection.
> 
>> Although
>> nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would
>> have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the
>> example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some
>> discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its more of a
>> ethical and respect issue, IMHO.
> 
> I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples,
> LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution.  The Java 5 stack trace
> in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been
> working hard to slim down our distributions.  I am pretty sure we
> agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while.
> But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is
> showing disrespect.  We're all in this together, and it's not your
> code or my code, it's our code.  I promise, if you make the console
> more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be
> offended, I'll buy you a beer.
> 
>> As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant
>> discussion with others before taking action.
> 
> Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion.  Sorry it wasn't
> sooner, but better late than never, eh?
> 
>> Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
>> after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
>> with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
>> to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
>> stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a 
>> bit.
> 
> Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to
> the list.  :)  Sorry.
> 
>> I attended for a total of about an hour.  I am speaking from hearsay
>> here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed?  I was told
>> by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting.
>>
>> This in-and-of-itself is the issue.  Knowing Geir was in town, and
>> especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a
>> speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time
>> understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event.  JavaOne
>> is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all
>> should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings
>> (positive or negative) about each other.  For those who could not
>> attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged.  This should have
>> been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed
>> not everyone was there.
>>
>> We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our
>> dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and
>> Geronimo.  We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.
> 
> I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not
> invited, Geir and others.  True, it would have been smart to arrange a
> dial-in.  Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved
> as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be
> overlooked either.  If the outcome of this is that no one should have
> a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that
> (but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable).  I talked to
> another committer at a different conference recently, and we
> brainstormed some ideas for improving the product.  Was that wrong?
> Where's the line?  Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't?
> 

I think two or 50 is fine.  The issue was that some people wanted to join and were not invited.  Its 
not a number issue.  its an openess issue.

> If there was some policy, believe me, I'd work with it.
> 
> Perhaps we should organize a series of Geronimo community meetings,
> throughout the year, so we can address issues (like this) closer to
> when they come up, and there would be less motivation to set up
> individual meetings at conferences and things.  Would that help?
> Would you help organize such a thing?  I would.  We can try for
> something in Barcelona or Dublin, if that's not too soon.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
>> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please 
>> elaborate
>> >> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> >> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless 
>> dependencies,
>> >> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, 
>> the
>> >> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product 
>> was
>> >> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> >> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> >> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> >> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, 
>> and I
>> >> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental 
>> and
>> >> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> >> > move forward.
>> >> >
>> >> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> >> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If 
>> there
>> >> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> >> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web 
>> site, etc
>> >> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I 
>> missed
>> >> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> >> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a 
>> week.  I
>> >> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> >> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> >> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> >> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> >> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, 
>> get it
>> >> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 
>> hours is
>> >> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't 
>> feel
>> >> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> >> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 
>> and see
>> >> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> >> > try something different for the release after.
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >    Aaron
>> >> >
>> >> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No
>> >> one can
>> >> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
>> >> there.  And
>> >> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines 
>> we're
>> >> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
>> >> (i.e., a
>> >> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
>> >> help on
>> >> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a 
>> popular
>> >> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
>> >> volunteer
>> >> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> >> > immensely.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> >> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt 
>> has
>> >> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
>> >> things
>> >> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
>> >> group
>> >> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> >> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> >> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
>> >> panacea.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
>> >> expect
>> >> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each 
>> other in
>> >> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> >> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have 
>> a long
>> >> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Jeff
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would 
>> be a
>> >> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline 
>> will
>> >> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular 
>> feature
>> >> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
>> >> determining
>> >> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
>> >> difficult.
>> >> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Bruce
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me.  This has
> nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue.  The point
> here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
> clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have
> been involved in.  Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone
> talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred.

Um...  OK.  I didn't think setting up a site to hold the plugins was
that big a deal.  If it bothered you, I'm sorry.  Let's talk about it.
 What do you recommend?  The constraints I see are that is should be
able to host Apache, GPL, LGPL, and commercial code.  Do you agree?
Disagree?  What do you recommend for a hosting site?

> This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the
> Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up
> into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from
> others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.

I find this extra-confusing.  I took a piece of Geronimo which was
hard-coded into the product (e.g. via our assembly system) and made it
a modular part of the product (e.g. a plugin that you can install or
not as you please).  And you feel that as the primary author of the
code, you should have been consulted?  That I'm somehow using your own
hard work to my advantage instead of to improve the product as a
whole?  I'm sorry for offending you.  But I don't understand your
objection.

> Although
> nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would
> have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the
> example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some
> discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its more of a
> ethical and respect issue, IMHO.

I think we agreed that it was a mistake to include so much (samples,
LDAP, etc.) in the base Geronimo distribution.  The Java 5 stack trace
in Geronimo 1.0 was directly attributable to this, plus we've been
working hard to slim down our distributions.  I am pretty sure we
agreed on that in discussions on the list, though it's been a while.
But I still don't understand how changing or repackaging code is
showing disrespect.  We're all in this together, and it's not your
code or my code, it's our code.  I promise, if you make the console
more modular so it runs in Little G just as well as Big G, I won't be
offended, I'll buy you a beer.

> As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant
> discussion with others before taking action.

Well, OK, as I said, let's have the discussion.  Sorry it wasn't
sooner, but better late than never, eh?

> Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
> after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
> with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
> to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
> stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit.

Yeah, I admit, I was a little fired up after you posted my address to
the list.  :)  Sorry.

> I attended for a total of about an hour.  I am speaking from hearsay
> here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed?  I was told
> by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting.
>
> This in-and-of-itself is the issue.  Knowing Geir was in town, and
> especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a
> speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time
> understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event.  JavaOne
> is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all
> should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings
> (positive or negative) about each other.  For those who could not
> attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged.  This should have
> been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed
> not everyone was there.
>
> We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our
> dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and
> Geronimo.  We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.

I am sure there were a number of people at JavaOne who were not
invited, Geir and others.  True, it would have been smart to arrange a
dial-in.  Ideally, many of the non-committers would have been involved
as well, as their dedication and contributions should not be
overlooked either.  If the outcome of this is that no one should have
a meeting unless the whole community is invited, I can work with that
(but I don't think that's necessarily reasonable).  I talked to
another committer at a different conference recently, and we
brainstormed some ideas for improving the product.  Was that wrong?
Where's the line?  Is 5 people OK but 15 isn't?

If there was some policy, believe me, I'd work with it.

Perhaps we should organize a series of Geronimo community meetings,
throughout the year, so we can address issues (like this) closer to
when they come up, and there would be less motivation to set up
individual meetings at conferences and things.  Would that help?
Would you help organize such a thing?  I would.  We can try for
something in Barcelona or Dublin, if that's not too soon.

Thanks,
    Aaron

> >> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> >> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> >> >
> >> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> >> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> >> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> >> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> >> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> >> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> >> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> >> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> >> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> >> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> >> > move forward.
> >> >
> >> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> >> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> >> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> >> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> >> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> >> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> >> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> >> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> >> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> >> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> >> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> >> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> >> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> >> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> >> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> >> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> >> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> >> > try something different for the release after.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >    Aaron
> >> >
> >> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No
> >> one can
> >> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
> >> there.  And
> >> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> >> >> >> working toward are.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
> >> (i.e., a
> >> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
> >> help on
> >> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> >> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> >> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
> >> volunteer
> >> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> >> >> > immensely.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
> >> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
> >> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
> >> things
> >> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
> >> group
> >> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
> >> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
> >> >>
> >> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
> >> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
> >> panacea.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
> >> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
> >> expect
> >> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
> >> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
> >> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
> >> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
> >> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
> >> >>
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> >> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> >> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> >> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
> >> determining
> >> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
> >> difficult.
> >> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Just my $0.02.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Bruce
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

I have entered my own comments below...

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Aaron,
>>
>> Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow
>> anyone that you have sent a private
>> e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other
>> posts on this thread.  I think
>> that will help.
> 
> Sure.
> 
>> Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is
>> probably a good place to start.
>>   Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address
>> specific information.
>>
>> Registrant:
>>     Address is provided *Removed*
>>     Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM
>>        Created on: 11-Apr-06
>>        Expires on: 11-Apr-07
>>        Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06
>>
>>     Administrative Contact:
>>        Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu
>>
>>     Technical Contact:
>>        Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu
> 
> Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one,
> and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue).  I've offered a
> number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and
> so far, no one's taken me up on it.  My goals are to provide a Maven
> repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL,
> proprietary.  Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious
> enoguh to provide one.  And now you're jumping on her for it?  That's
> gratitude!
> 
> Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories
> is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available
> sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time.
> 
> What is your counter-proposal?

I brought this up as an issue originally as it bothered me.  This has
nothing to do with Erin, so let's not obfuscate the issue.  The point
here is there was absolutely no discussion about this, as this was
clearly a fairly large decision that we, as a community, should have
been involved in.  Unless I missed something, I do not recall anyone
talking about registering a site with Geronimo plugins before it occurred.

This also bothered me as a peer, since a lot of the work I did on the
Directory server integration was taken out of Geronimo, then wrapped up
into a plugin and placed on this external site, without input from
others, as well as those who did the hard work on integration.  Although
nothing in the Apache License prohibits you from doing this, it would
have been prudent and shown respect to your peers who put together the
example applications and the Directory integration, to have had some
discussions about doing this and how they felt about it.  Its more of a
ethical and respect issue, IMHO.

As for your question, my counter proposal is having significant
discussion with others before taking action.

Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit.


>> Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed
>> that specifically excluded
>> members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to
>> the list if you like.  Given
>> that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are
>> somewhat culpable but given that
>> you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to
>> have that discussion in the open
>> as well.
> 
> Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few
> other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about
> so long as we were all together.  I'm sorry that there's a perception
> of an exclusionary wall.  It was on us to pay for the food, which at
> hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't
> able to invite the entire Geronimo community.  I apologize to everyone
> in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't
> invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get
> together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the
> discussion points to the mailing list.  If you objected, why am I
> first hearing about it now?

I attended for a total of about an hour.  I am speaking from hearsay
here...but was Geir's presence, or lack-there-of discussed?  I was told
by someone that it was actually discussed at the meeting.

> 
> And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do?  If
> it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer,
> and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should
> happen?  If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or
> phone calls discussing Geronimo issues?  Or are you going to provide
> an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of
> the night for the convenience of the Asian community?
> 
> I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> was.

This in-and-of-itself is the issue.  Knowing Geir was in town, and
especially knowing the fact that he was responsible for obtaining a
speaker pass for you at JavaOne, I am having a difficult time
understanding how or why he would be excluded from the event.  JavaOne
is a time many of us (Geronimo) come together, and I believe we all
should have the opportunity to be together, regardless of our feelings
(positive or negative) about each other.  For those who could not
attend, a dial-in probably could have been arranged.  This should have
been more open, and I am myself guilty for attending this when I noticed
not everyone was there.

We have all earned the privilege to be on Geronimo due to our
dedication, contributions, and commitments we have made to Apache and
Geronimo.  We all should have the opportunity to engage as well.

> 
>> In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list
>> allowing folks to paste their private
>> notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your
>> request.  I'm happy to oblige.
> 
> ???  I sense you have a major issue with some e-mail I've sent, though
> in all honesty, I don't know what it is.  Did I say that IBM has a
> secret plan to rule the world?  (Don't you? :)  In any case, be my
> guest.

I have received emails from you Aaron that were

> 
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
>> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
>> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
>> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
>> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
>> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
>> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> > move forward.
>> >
>> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
>> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
>> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
>> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
>> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
>> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
>> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
>> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
>> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> > try something different for the release after.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No
>> one can
>> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
>> there.  And
>> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
>> (i.e., a
>> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
>> help on
>> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
>> volunteer
>> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> > immensely.
>> >>
>> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
>> things
>> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
>> group
>> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >>
>> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
>> panacea.
>> >>
>> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
>> expect
>> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
>> determining
>> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
>> difficult.
>> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bruce
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

Openness indeed.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> 
> Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs
> one

Which project?  Geronimo?  The plugins effort?

> and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue).  I've offered
> a number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site,
> and so far, no one's taken me up on it.  My goals are to provide a
> Maven repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL,
> GPL, proprietary.  Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was
> gracious enoguh to provide one.  And now you're jumping on her for
> it?  That's gratitude!

The problem here is perceptual.  There wasn't a 'hey, what do people
think about this?' message first, and being presented with the site
as a fait accompli was unsettling.

> What is your counter-proposal?

IMHO, more 'what do people think' before doing things that
are high-profile or difficult to back out.  Or at all, for that
matter.

> Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira.  I thought I was 
> using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the 
> issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was
> willing to work on what.  Including, of course, a todo list for
> myself.

If a release is in process, assigning a bunch of bugs into it
without at least consulting the people involved in it --
especially the release manager -- is bad form.  For one thing,
it can make the release manager look like a jerk.

> By all means, if you object to something I do like that, please say
> something!  "Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the tasks for
> 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's *definitely*
> going to happen in the next 2 weeks" or whatever.  I don't remember
> having those discussions until well after the fact.

But it didn't occur to you that the versioning of the
JIRAs was related to the versioning of the release?  And
that the release manager should maybe be consulted?

> Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few 
> other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk
> about so long as we were all together.  I'm sorry that there's a
> perception of an exclusionary wall.

I can't see that as anything but a handwave.  At least
one person, possibly two, has told me that at the meeting
he asked, 'Can I tell Geir where we are?' and received an
emphatic, 'No.  Geir's not welcome here.'  That's pretty
clearly exclusionary.  Perhaps that question wasn't asked
of *you*.  I'll let the querist(s) speak up with exact
details of who asked whom what and got what response if
he/they don't mind.

Also, now that you've given blanket permission, here's what
you said when I asked for a copy of the invitation message:

> Here is a copy for you, but I feel pretty strongly that this is not
> an appropriate subject for the dev list.

Not exclusionary?  You felt even the *subject* wasn't appropriate
for discussion.  And from the text of the invitation itself:

> I'd like to keep this group fairly focused...  thus the limited
> distribution.

That doesn't sound like 'let's keep the numbers small so
we can afford lunch.'

> If you objected, why am I first hearing about it now?

Here is where some of the intimidation issue raises its
head.  Matt says:

> I did object at the meeting but there seemed to be strong avoidance
> to including some people so I backed off.

Jeff has also mentioned:

> Relative to the private emails, I received an email from you privately
> after I brought up the geronimoplugins that was very aggressive, along
> with verbiage that bordered on threatening language.  Your private email
> to me started out with "Watch your tone".  This is the intimidation
> stuff that I have referred to in the past, and it concerns me quite a bit.

That's directed specifically at you, and about offline
interactions; but re the J1 meeting, that someone felt
he had to back down rather than argue his point sounds
like peer pressure brought to bear.

> And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do?  If 
> it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor,
> committer, and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting
> should happen?

Of course not.  But selecting who's allowed to be there
and who isn't, and actively excluding project committers,
isn't the "right" thing under any circumstances.  So what's
the right thing?  We can figure it out.. but we now have an
example of a *wrong* thing.  No amount of handwaving,
persiflage, or rhetoric is going to turn this sow's ear
into a silk purse.

I'm glad you've changed your mind and want all of the
back-channel crap brought out into the open.  I consider
that to be progress.  For myself, the purpose of not being
specific was to protect people who didn't want to be
directly identified.
-- 
#ken	P-|}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Okay, after reading the e-mails thus far ( I haven't read through all of them yet ) here are my 
responses inline.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Aaron,
>>
>> Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow 
>> anyone that you have sent a private
>> e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other 
>> posts on this thread.  I think
>> that will help.
> 
> Sure.

Thanks.

> 
>> Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is 
>> probably a good place to start.
>>   Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address 
>> specific information.
>>
>> Registrant:
>>     Address is provided *Removed*
>>     Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM
>>        Created on: 11-Apr-06
>>        Expires on: 11-Apr-07
>>        Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06
>>
>>     Administrative Contact:
>>        Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu
>>
>>     Technical Contact:
>>        Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu
> 
> Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one,
> and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue).  I've offered a
> number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and
> so far, no one's taken me up on it.  My goals are to provide a Maven
> repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL,
> proprietary.  Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious
> enoguh to provide one.  And now you're jumping on her for it?  That's
> gratitude!
> 
> Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories
> is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available
> sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time.
> 
> What is your counter-proposal?
>

Create a zone at Apache that will service this concept.  This would require talking to the infra 
team to do this.   Perhaps this was already done and we didn't see the traffic on the dev list.  If 
ther ewaw I apologize for the assertion.

>> Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes.  I 
>> was working to release 1.1 and
>> you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release.  I  don't think that 
>> we agreed on how to handle
>> JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization 
>> mechanism since you were not
>> releasing 1.1.
> 
> Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira.  I thought I was
> using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the
> issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing
> to work on what.  Including, of course, a todo list for myself.
> 
> I honestly had no idea that as release manager, you considered Jira to
> be your domain, and didn't want people using without what -- your
> approval?  By all means, if you object to something I do like that,
> please say something!  "Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the
> tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's
> *definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks" or whatever.  I
> don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact.
> 

Fair enough that you hadn't considered JIRA as a release management tool.  We3 never discussed it 
and perhaps from my perspective it seemed obvious.   Teh point is you used it for your purposes 
without a prior e-mail to the community about your intentions.  When you did move things back in I 
assumed a different strategy on how to manage the release.  Your intent being declared prior to 
moving the JIRAs would have allowed the community to interact and decided on a common course.

>> We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was 
>> all about what YOU wanted which
>> may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term 
>> I was introduced several
>> times.  I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives.
> 
> Yes of course.  I was explaining how I want to use an issue-tracking
> system.  (Were your posts about how Jeff wants to use an issue
> tracking system?)  I thought the point of the thread was for everyone
> to say what they're looking for so we can then decide the best way to
> do it as a group.
> 

Perhaps this was an unfair example.  You used the terms I an I need so I took that to be more 
focused on your desires rather than community focused.  If I mis-understood then I apologize.

>> Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed 
>> that specifically excluded
>> members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to 
>> the list if you like.  Given
>> that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are 
>> somewhat culpable but given that
>> you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to 
>> have that discussion in the open
>> as well.
> 
> Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few
> other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about
> so long as we were all together.  I'm sorry that there's a perception
> of an exclusionary wall.  It was on us to pay for the food, which at
> hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't
> able to invite the entire Geronimo community.  I apologize to everyone
> in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't
> invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get
> together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the
> discussion points to the mailing list.  If you objected, why am I
> first hearing about it now?
> 
> And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do?  If
> it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer,
> and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should
> happen?  If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or
> phone calls discussing Geronimo issues?  Or are you going to provide
> an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of
> the night for the convenience of the Asian community?
> 
> I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> was.

I was present at the meeting and as a consequence as culpable as the next person.  I did object at 
the meeting but there seemed to be strong avoidance to including some people so I backed off.  I was 
wrong.

I'm not sure the cost of lunch should ever be the deciding factor in a  meeting and in hind sight 
should never have allowed it to be a factor.  The commiters themselves should have been allowed the 
option as to whether they could or could not have attended.  We took too much on our shoulders for 
the decision making process.

> 
>> In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list 
>> allowing folks to paste their private
>> notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your 
>> request.  I'm happy to oblige.
> 
> ???  I sense you have a major issue with some e-mail I've sent, though
> in all honesty, I don't know what it is.  Did I say that IBM has a
> secret plan to rule the world?  (Don't you? :)  In any case, be my
> guest.
> 

Yes, you are right.  I do plan on ruling the world.  Hopefully through our contributions as a 
[project to the community.  As I described earlier, IBM has a challenge in determining the amount of 
  influence to bring to  bear on a project.  Our hope at IBM is that Geronimo (thus WAS CE) will be 
the first choice in open source AppServers.  I expect that is the intention of everyone on the project.

Here is the snippet I was referring to in private e-mail ... "I'm not sure if IBM has an internal 
road map with dates that I'm not privvy to, if it's all in your head, or if somehow you've announced
this but I've missed it. "

Of course we have an internal roadmap.  It was based on communication on the list in January where 
there was discussion about releasing once a month or earlier.  Seems we missed that goal and once 
very five months hadn't been discussed. As a whole our  project didn't live up to our talk.  I think 
we need to address this.

> Thanks,
>     Aaron
> 
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
>> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
>> >
>> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
>> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
>> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
>> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
>> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
>> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> > move forward.
>> >
>> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
>> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
>> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
>> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
>> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
>> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
>> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
>> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
>> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> > try something different for the release after.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No 
>> one can
>> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out 
>> there.  And
>> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline 
>> (i.e., a
>> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may 
>> help on
>> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a 
>> volunteer
>> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> > immensely.
>> >>
>> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made 
>> things
>> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with 
>> group
>> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >>
>> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a 
>> panacea.
>> >>
>> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully 
>> expect
>> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, 
>> determining
>> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite 
>> difficult.
>> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bruce
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
>>
>> On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
>> > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
>> > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
>> > was.
> 
> Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together,
> they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and
> let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they
> can work together.
> 
> Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this
> mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in
> some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or
> anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them
> to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
> conversation to the list after the fact?

I don't think that an all list requirement is appropriate.  We have to allow for people having 
conversations that are not privy to everyone's consumption.  However, where those discussion turn 
into a collusion about how the project should unfold then I think it has turned to an innapropriate 
level.

> 
> I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from
> so many people about this topic. Please help me understand.
> 
> Bruce

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

Aaron,

The info was available publicly more than a week ago (If one know what
to look for..):
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=411036

I presume that the expectation of the board and the pmc chair is for
us to figure out things for ourselves. If we expect someone to lay
down the rules either we will protest on the language or throw hands
up in the air over tiny language tweaks or figure out a way to stay
true to the word but not the intent of the policy. (think what we did
as teenagers :) SO...we need to learn to fish and not expect a fish to
be given to us. That way next time a situation arises, we know exactly
what to do and what not to do.

BTW, Am really glad we are talking in public about our
folly/foible(s). This is an absolute first step towards making things
better.

thanks,
dims

On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Dims,
>
> Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful
> message.  (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago?  I don't
> know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today.
> What's the message?)  You in your e-mail right here have said what you
> though went wrong and how you think it could be corrected in the
> future.  One of my biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair
> is that they have done neither.  In conversation with the PMC chair I
> practically begged him to tell me I had done something wrong WRT the
> JavaOne meeting and what should be done differently next time.  He
> declined.  I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any
> kind that he thought needed to be changed.  He declined.  I think the
> message you provided below "If I had known about the meeting I would
> have done this...  What Apache projects usually do is this...  All it
> would have taken was this..." was extremely useful.  Please, please
> encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future.
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>
> On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Bruce,
> >
> > If you are again asking for my input here it is....It's plain and
> > simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much
> > as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space
> > constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby
> > one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC.
> >
> > If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the
> > topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the
> > lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the "Notes from JavaOne"
> > [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing
> > both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could
> > have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who
> > followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne.
> >
> > Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an
> > agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team
> > either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we
> > call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the
> > items before hand and thrash out the rest in person.
> >
> > All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items
> > to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding
> > behind facade's like "oh, it was a vendor meeting" or "meeting
> > friends" or "We just left out just one person" or "Oh, There was a
> > BOF" or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think
> > about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the
> > project or not. By "bring the community together", hope you don't mean
> > that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two
> > from the strong actions by the pmc chair.
> >
> > Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it!!!!!!!!
> >
> > [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=114807250831613&w=2
> > [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=114840811100003&r=1&w=2
> >
> > thanks,
> > dims
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
> > > >
> > > > On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > > > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> > > > > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> > > > > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> > > > > was.
> > >
> > > Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together,
> > > they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and
> > > let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they
> > > can work together.
> > >
> > > Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this
> > > mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in
> > > some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or
> > > anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them
> > > to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
> > > conversation to the list after the fact?
> > >
> > > I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from
> > > so many people about this topic. Please help me understand.
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > > --
> > > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > > );'
> > >
> > > Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> > > Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
> > > Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
> > > Castor - http://castor.org/
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
> >
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hiram Chirino wrote:
> 
> On 6/12/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>> Aaron wrote:
>>> Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how?
>> I responded:
>>> People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless
>>> they feel comfortable.  It's not for me to reveal their
>>> information; they can do so themselves on the dev list.  If they
>>> feel comfortable doing so.
> 
> This feels wrong to me.  It might just be my personal philosophy, but
> typically, I don't give any credit to an accusation unless the
> accuser is willing to stand behind the accusation in the open.

Typically I agree.  Out in the open, or with evidence.  In this
case, answering the request for exact names and methods would
essentially have been gossip.

> Yes, I understand the concept of feeling intimidated, but that
> concept is to easy to hide behind for the purpose of slinging around
> false accusations.

And because someone *can* misuse it the default assumption
should be that everyone *will*?  That attitude is at least
as destructive as the intimidation itself might be.  In this
case, there have been multiple independent sources corroborating
each other.  If someone is in distress because it feels
intimidated, fears at least as much if not more distress
will ensue if it 'goes public,' and you're asked to for help
about it -- what do you do?  What if multiple people have
approached you independently?  Do you ignore their concerns
until they're 'brave' enough to speak up publicly?  Or change
things so that intimidation is more difficult?
- --
#ken	P-|}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iQCVAwUBRJFrOJrNPMCpn3XdAQJwXQP9GcxzekhURZ71mhcXlEK+N5kuuYxPwsyN
q4d9aIY34OhbNL+lqum12p7q64xdTOnu7W76Mqu8UgHwVpYcLQ1tBeqVcnURHmS9
kMaGk96Z62oM0WOExHs4LW31d1QkfRmyEJ6UC3P0cQGPqhDJobMlibrUPE7vKflf
psMcP8ggFGg=
=2adA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>]

Hi Ken,

On 6/12/06, Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@golux.com> wrote:
>
> Aaron wrote:
> > Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how?
>
> I responded:
> > People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they
> > feel comfortable.  It's not for me to reveal their information; they
> > can do so themselves on the dev list.  If they feel comfortable doing
> > so.
>

This feels wrong to me.  It might just be my personal philosophy, but
typically, I don't give any credit to an accusation unless the accuser
is willing to stand behind the accusation in the open.  Yes, I
understand the concept of feeling intimidated, but that concept is to
easy to hide behind for the purpose of slinging around false
accusations.

-- 
Regards,
Hiram

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> Dims,
> 
> Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful 
> message.

Perhaps -- and evidently -- not useful to you, but it appears
that others have caught on.

> (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago?  I don't know --
> you have made the first announcement of this just today. What's the
> message?)

'Why': because it was evident that some of the PMC members
were experiencing serious conflicts of interest, and it
appeared that they were being resolved to the project's
detriment.
'The message': No particular message; their project responsibilities
shouldn't have to complete unfavourably with their work or
personal desires, and now don't.

> You in your e-mail right here have said what you though went wrong
> and how you think it could be corrected in the future.  One of my
> biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair is that they have
> done neither.

Untrue.  There were extended discussions in the PMC.  You
voluntarily resigned from the PMC, and wouldn't reconsider
even when I explicitly asked you.  That you have thereby
deprived yourself of a source of information and excluded
yourself from some project-related meta-discussions is a
condition you have chosen.  To more directly address
your remark: just because you are unaware of a fact does not
make it nonexistent.

> In conversation with the PMC chair I practically begged him to tell
> me I had done something wrong WRT the JavaOne meeting and what should
> be done differently next time.  He declined.

Let me quote some of the exchanges, interspersed from the
back-and-forth thread:

=======

Aaron wrote:
> What's the point of posting the invitation to the dev list?

I responded:
> I asked you to post the invitation because there is some confusion
> about it, and seeing the actual message would clear that up.

Aaron wrote:
> I'm especially confused by the implication that any development has 
> been done in private.  What development is that?

I responded:
> That's part of the confusion surrounding the invitation.

Aaron wrote:
> On whose part?

I responded:
> Primarily on the part of people who heard about it but weren't
> included even though they're on the project, and others who heard
> about it who *aren't* on the project.

Aaron wrote:
> Also, who has accused who of intimidation and how?

I responded:
> People who feel intimidated don't speak up about it until/unless they
> feel comfortable.  It's not for me to reveal their information; they
> can do so themselves on the dev list.  If they feel comfortable doing
> so.

Aaron wrote:
> And why is there concern over a gathering of friends at a conference?
> 
I responded:
> Because there are concerns that it was rather more than that.  For
> one thing, you don't typically get corporate sponsors for 'gatherings
> of friends.'  And people charged with oversight of an open project
> have to be sensitive to what they do that relates to the project.

Aaron wrote:
> It should be pretty clear from the invitation there was no secret 
> development nor intimidation of non-invited project members.

[*** Note that it certainly couldn't be clear, one way or the other,
  to anyone who hadn't *seen* the invitation; hence the desire to
  make it available to people so they could draw their own
  conclusions from it about any concerns they might have had.]

I responded:
> The Monday meeting and the development model change are separate
> issues.  The 'intimidation' aspect has nothing to do with the
> invitation.  The 'secret development' aspect comes in when some
> committers are invited to participate and others are deliberately
> excluded.

Aaron wrote:
> Further, since you have not shared any specific concerns regarding
> intimidation or secret development with me, I'm going to assume there
> are none that are pertinent to me.  Not trying to be a jerk here, but
> no wrongdoing has been pointed out to me, so my plan is to not lose
> sleep over what didn't happen.

I responded:
> That's cool.

[*** Note that this is an unsatisfactory end to this issue;
  I said I wasn't going to name names, and Aaron said he was
  going to regard that as meaning he wasn't involved.  Not
  necessarily a valid conclusion to draw.]

=======

> I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any kind that
> he thought needed to be changed.  He declined.  I think the message
> you provided below "If I had known about the meeting I would have
> done this...  What Apache projects usually do is this...  All it 
> would have taken was this..." was extremely useful.  Please, please 
> encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future.

That approach has been taken, but you seem unwilling to
acknowledge it.  The message is: Apache Geronimo is a
collaborative effort.  Committers are peers.  Cliques
are inappropriate, as are significant changes made
unilaterally and without community input.

Is that message sufficiently clear?
-- 
#ken	P-|}

Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini  http://Ken.Coar.Org/
Author, developer, opinionist      http://Apache-Server.Com/

"Millennium hand and shrimp!"

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Dims,

Please don't imply that the PMC chair has sent an at-all useful
message.  (Why is the PMC different today than 4 weeks ago?  I don't
know -- you have made the first announcement of this just today.
What's the message?)  You in your e-mail right here have said what you
though went wrong and how you think it could be corrected in the
future.  One of my biggest complaints with the board and the PMC chair
is that they have done neither.  In conversation with the PMC chair I
practically begged him to tell me I had done something wrong WRT the
JavaOne meeting and what should be done differently next time.  He
declined.  I asked him to provide concrete examples of behavior of any
kind that he thought needed to be changed.  He declined.  I think the
message you provided below "If I had known about the meeting I would
have done this...  What Apache projects usually do is this...  All it
would have taken was this..." was extremely useful.  Please, please
encourage the PMC chair to take this approach in the future.

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> If you are again asking for my input here it is....It's plain and
> simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much
> as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space
> constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby
> one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC.
>
> If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the
> topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the
> lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the "Notes from JavaOne"
> [1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing
> both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could
> have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who
> followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne.
>
> Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an
> agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team
> either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we
> call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the
> items before hand and thrash out the rest in person.
>
> All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items
> to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding
> behind facade's like "oh, it was a vendor meeting" or "meeting
> friends" or "We just left out just one person" or "Oh, There was a
> BOF" or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think
> about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the
> project or not. By "bring the community together", hope you don't mean
> that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two
> from the strong actions by the pmc chair.
>
> Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it!!!!!!!!
>
> [1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=114807250831613&w=2
> [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=114840811100003&r=1&w=2
>
> thanks,
> dims
>
> On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
> > >
> > > On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> > > > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> > > > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> > > > was.
> >
> > Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together,
> > they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and
> > let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they
> > can work together.
> >
> > Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this
> > mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in
> > some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or
> > anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them
> > to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
> > conversation to the list after the fact?
> >
> > I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from
> > so many people about this topic. Please help me understand.
> >
> > Bruce
> > --
> > perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> >
> > Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> > Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
> > Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
> > Castor - http://castor.org/
> >
>
>
> --
> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

Bruce,

If you are again asking for my input here it is....It's plain and
simple. If there is a forum for discussion, it should be open as much
as possible. If it's not possible because of either monetary or space
constraints, then at least there should be some notification whereby
one can give their input on topics at hand via email and/or IRC.

If i had known about significant discussions, i'd have brought up the
topic of how/what my thoughts are on a JAX-WS implementation and the
lack of a credible JAXB2 implementation. So the "Notes from JavaOne"
[1] would have brought out the problems we will be facing implementing
both JAX-WS and JAX-RPC (and using a single SAAJ impl) which could
have been discussed at this forum. I really have to thank David who
followed up by initiating discussion on axis-dev [2] after JavaOne.

Clearly there was a private list of people who were invited and an
agenda was drawn up which was not shared with the whole dev team
either privately or publicly. Typically in all Apache projects, we
call it a F2F, pre announce it, discuss via email/wiki some of the
items before hand and thrash out the rest in person.

All it would have taken is *ONE* lousy email asking for input on items
to be discussed either publicly or privately to all committers. Hiding
behind facade's like "oh, it was a vendor meeting" or "meeting
friends" or "We just left out just one person" or "Oh, There was a
BOF" or a thousand other excuses don't count. All you need to think
about is whether you are being fair to everyone who is engaged in the
project or not. By "bring the community together", hope you don't mean
that we just go back to our merry ways and not learn a lesson or two
from the strong actions by the pmc chair.

Guys, there is something wrong we are doing. Let's fix it!!!!!!!!

[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=114807250831613&w=2
[2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=114840811100003&r=1&w=2

thanks,
dims

On 6/9/06, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> > > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> > > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> > > was.
>
> Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together,
> they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and
> let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they
> can work together.
>
> Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this
> mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in
> some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or
> anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them
> to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
> conversation to the list after the fact?
>
> I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from
> so many people about this topic. Please help me understand.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
> Castor - http://castor.org/
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
>
> On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> > was.

Dims, statements like that don't work to bring the community together,
they only cause more animosity. Let's try to move beyond the jabs and
let the people with unresolved issues air their concerns so that they
can work together.

Yet again I'm now thoroughly confused on this whole topic. Does this
mean that nobody can even talk about Geronimo unless it's on-list in
some way? Does this mean if someone at a client site or a local JUG or
anywhere asks me questions about Geronimo that I must either tell them
to ask on the list because I'm not allowed to talk about it or post my
conversation to the list after the fact?

I really am seriously confused because of so many mixed messages from
so many people about this topic. Please help me understand.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

Aaron,

Sure. I assumed for a bit that the RTC [1] and PMC Changes [2]
instituted by our pmc chair had sent a strong signal and wrongfully
thought that had its desired effect, which is to help improve
collaboration and make sure there are no "exclusionary walls" w.r.t
participating in Geronimo development.

-- dims

[1] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=geronimo-dev&m=114825592721785&w=2
[2] http://geronimo.apache.org/contributors.html

On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.
>
> I'm not sure what this means.  Can you elaborate?
>
> Thanks,
>     Aaron
>
> > On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> > > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> > > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> > > was.
> >
>


-- 
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/9/06, Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.

I'm not sure what this means.  Can you elaborate?

Thanks,
    Aaron

> On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> > I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> > getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> > as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> > was.
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Davanum Srinivas <da...@gmail.com>]

Sigh! :( Looks like all efforts are down the drain.

On 6/9/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
> getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
> as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
> was.

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private
> e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread.  I think
> that will help.

Sure.

> Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start.
>   Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address specific information.
>
> Registrant:
>     Address is provided *Removed*
>     Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM
>        Created on: 11-Apr-06
>        Expires on: 11-Apr-07
>        Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06
>
>     Administrative Contact:
>        Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu
>
>     Technical Contact:
>        Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu

Yes, of course, that's a domain we got, because the project needs one,
and it can't be at Apache (due to the LGPL issue).  I've offered a
number of times to give people accounts to help manage the site, and
so far, no one's taken me up on it.  My goals are to provide a Maven
repository (=HTTP site) that can hold *all* plugins, ASF, LGPL, GPL,
proprietary.  Since I didn't see one out there, Erin was gracious
enoguh to provide one.  And now you're jumping on her for it?  That's
gratitude!

Also, recall that the file defining the available plugin repositories
is hosted by the ASF, so the ASF can change the list of available
sites away from geronimoplugins.com at any time.

What is your counter-proposal?

> Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes.  I was working to release 1.1 and
> you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release.  I  don't think that we agreed on how to handle
> JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since you were not
> releasing 1.1.

Gosh, I didn't really think I was hijacking Jira.  I thought I was
using it for its intended purpose, which is to say, tracking the
issues with the project, what should be worked on, and who was willing
to work on what.  Including, of course, a todo list for myself.

I honestly had no idea that as release manager, you considered Jira to
be your domain, and didn't want people using without what -- your
approval?  By all means, if you object to something I do like that,
please say something!  "Aaron, I'm trying to use Jira to track the
tasks for 1.1, please don't put anything in there unless it's
*definitely* going to happen in the next 2 weeks" or whatever.  I
don't remember having those discussions until well after the fact.

> We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU wanted which
> may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced several
> times.  I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives.

Yes of course.  I was explaining how I want to use an issue-tracking
system.  (Were your posts about how Jeff wants to use an issue
tracking system?)  I thought the point of the thread was for everyone
to say what they're looking for so we can then decide the best way to
do it as a group.

> Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded
> members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like.  Given
> that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that
> you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open
> as well.

Well, actually, it was kind of a joint idea between myself and a few
other people who thought there were some things we ought to talk about
so long as we were all together.  I'm sorry that there's a perception
of an exclusionary wall.  It was on us to pay for the food, which at
hotel rates was $100 per person for the day, so naturally I wasn't
able to invite the entire Geronimo community.  I apologize to everyone
in the community who wasn't able to be at JavaOne or who wasn't
invited, but it seemed like an ideal scenario for many of us to get
together and discuss some of the current issues and then take the
discussion points to the mailing list.  If you objected, why am I
first hearing about it now?

And anyway, what is the perception of the "right" thing to do?  If
it's not economically feasible for every user, contributor, committer,
and PMC member to get together does that mean no meeting should
happen?  If so, will IBM immediately cease having any meetings or
phone calls discussing Geronimo issues?  Or are you going to provide
an international dial-in for every one, and hold them in the middle of
the night for the convenience of the Asian community?

I don't see what's wrong with a group of folks interested in Gernoimo
getting together to talk about Geronimo.  So long as it's positioned
as discussion not decision-making, of course -- which, as I recall, it
was.

> In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list allowing folks to paste their private
> notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your request.  I'm happy to oblige.

???  I sense you have a major issue with some e-mail I've sent, though
in all honesty, I don't know what it is.  Did I say that IBM has a
secret plan to rule the world?  (Don't you? :)  In any case, be my
guest.

Thanks,
     Aaron

> Aaron Mulder wrote:
> > In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> > on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> > move forward.
> >
> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> > try something different for the release after.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Aaron
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> >> >> working toward are.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> >> > immensely.
> >>
> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
> >>
> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
> >>
> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> >> >
> >> > Just my $0.02.
> >> >
> >> > Bruce
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Aaron,

Since you asked.  First, Can you respond below if you will allow anyone that you have sent a private 
e-mail to to cut and paste the contents of those messages into other posts on this thread.  I think 
that will help.

Second, the geronimoplugins.com which was injected into Geronimo is probably a good place to start. 
  Here is a snip from whois of that domain.  I removed the address specific information.

Registrant:
    Address is provided *Removed*
    Domain Name: GERONIMOPLUGINS.COM
       Created on: 11-Apr-06
       Expires on: 11-Apr-07
       Last Updated on: 11-Apr-06

    Administrative Contact:
       Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu

    Technical Contact:
       Mulder, Erin  meara@alumni.princeton.edu

Next we can discuss the hijacking of JIRA for your own purposes.  I was working to release 1.1 and 
you moved over 80 other JIRAs into the release.  I  don't think that we agreed on how to handle 
JIRAs but I think it was bad form to assume it was your prioritization mechanism since you were not 
releasing 1.1.

We also discussed how to use JIRA more effectively and you post was all about what YOU wanted which 
may be unfair to post as you were presenting your opinion but the term I was introduced several 
times.  I can find the post but I suspect its in most people's archives.

Shall we begin to discuss the meeting at Java One that you proposed that specifically excluded 
members of the community.  I'd be happy to bring that discussion to the list if you like.  Given 
that IBM paid for the room that the discussion occurred in we are somewhat culpable but given that 
you were the master mind behind the exclusionary wall I'm happy to have that discussion in the open 
as well.

In the end all I need is a simple e-mail from you to this list allowing folks to paste their private 
notes from you and we can have it all in the open which was your request.  I'm happy to oblige.

Bring it on.

Matt


Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
> 
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
>> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
>> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> working toward are.
>> >
>> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
>> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
>> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
>> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> > immensely.
>>
>> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
>> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
>> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>>
>> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
>> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >
>> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
>> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
>> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02.
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Aaron,

A flame-fest is counter productive...I prefer we keep this professional.
 If folks want to see the issues, the mail lists are available for
people to read over the last several weeks and make their own opinion.
There is more than enough information there to clearly show there are
concerns on how we communicate, and our methods of communication.

The point is, we need to work on our communication with each other on
several levels, and we can choose to agree that we all can work with
each other better, both from a informational issue, down to the way we
address each other, or we can also choose to "look the other way" and
continue down the path that we have.  We know exactly where that path
leads us from a consequences perspective, and its not good.

Jeff

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to
>> see this thread degrade into a flame-fest.  I would much rather that we
>> can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely
>> enough of a communication problem, that things were "quietly" being put
>> in and the issue and concern was raised by others.
> 
> And, in my opinion, a non-trivial part of the problem is nebulous
> accusations with no specifics.  How can we agree not to accuse people
> of secret agendas, if no one knows what accusations are being made and
> on what basis?  How can we agree not to "quietly" put things into the
> product if no one will state what "quietly" means and what was
> "quietly" put in?  How can we discuss whether people were being
> intimidated if no one can provide an example of intimidation?
> 
> I'm no longer williing to entertain people saying "other people are
> saying there's an issue.  I don't feel like saying what the issue is,
> or I don't know -- it was all other people saying it" or whatever.
> 
> If there's a problem, state it specifically, let's have the flame
> fest, and we'll agree on how to do things better moving forward.
> 
> I believe it is 100% counterproductive to keep asserting that things
> are going wrong without any specifics.  If we don't discuss, there
> won't be improvement.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
>> Clearly people have raised that we need to communicate more, and the RTC
>> initiative, in and of itself, is an indication that we need to bring a
>> lot more discussion to the lists.  If this is not clear, then we have a
>> much greater problem that I had imagined.
>>
>> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
>> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
>> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
>> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
>> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
>> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
>> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
>> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
>> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
>> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
>> > move forward.
>> >
>> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
>> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
>> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
>> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
>> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
>> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
>> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
>> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
>> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
>> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
>> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
>> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
>> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
>> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
>> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
>> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
>> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
>> > try something different for the release after.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >    Aaron
>> >
>> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No
>> one can
>> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out
>> there.  And
>> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> >> working toward are.
>> >> >
>> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline
>> (i.e., a
>> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may
>> help on
>> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a
>> volunteer
>> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> >> > immensely.
>> >>
>> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made
>> things
>> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with
>> group
>> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>> >>
>> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a
>> panacea.
>> >>
>> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully
>> expect
>> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule,
>> determining
>> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite
>> difficult.
>> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >> >
>> >> > Just my $0.02.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bruce
>> >>
>>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to
> see this thread degrade into a flame-fest.  I would much rather that we
> can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely
> enough of a communication problem, that things were "quietly" being put
> in and the issue and concern was raised by others.

And, in my opinion, a non-trivial part of the problem is nebulous
accusations with no specifics.  How can we agree not to accuse people
of secret agendas, if no one knows what accusations are being made and
on what basis?  How can we agree not to "quietly" put things into the
product if no one will state what "quietly" means and what was
"quietly" put in?  How can we discuss whether people were being
intimidated if no one can provide an example of intimidation?

I'm no longer williing to entertain people saying "other people are
saying there's an issue.  I don't feel like saying what the issue is,
or I don't know -- it was all other people saying it" or whatever.

If there's a problem, state it specifically, let's have the flame
fest, and we'll agree on how to do things better moving forward.

I believe it is 100% counterproductive to keep asserting that things
are going wrong without any specifics.  If we don't discuss, there
won't be improvement.

Thanks,
    Aaron

> Clearly people have raised that we need to communicate more, and the RTC
> initiative, in and of itself, is an indication that we need to bring a
> lot more discussion to the lists.  If this is not clear, then we have a
> much greater problem that I had imagined.
>
> > As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> > module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> > etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> > console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> > not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> > worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> > caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> > for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> > think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> > keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> > move forward.
> >
> > As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> > the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> > was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> > didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> > (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> > it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> > preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> > contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> > well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> > builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> > appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> > check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> > and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> > sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> > strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> > I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> > how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> > try something different for the release after.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >    Aaron
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> >> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
> >> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
> >> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> >> >> working toward are.
> >> >
> >> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
> >> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
> >> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> >> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> >> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
> >> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> >> > immensely.
> >>
> >> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
> >> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
> >> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
> >> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
> >> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
> >> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
> >>
> >> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
> >> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
> >>
> >> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
> >> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
> >> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
> >> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
> >> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
> >> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
> >> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> >> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> >> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> >> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> >> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> >> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> >> >
> >> > Just my $0.02.
> >> >
> >> > Bruce
> >>
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
> on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.
> 

Personally, I would rather we not get into details as I do not want to
see this thread degrade into a flame-fest.  I would much rather that we
can all agree that there is a communication problem, and definitely
enough of a communication problem, that things were "quietly" being put
in and the issue and concern was raised by others.

Clearly people have raised that we need to communicate more, and the RTC
initiative, in and of itself, is an indication that we need to bring a
lot more discussion to the lists.  If this is not clear, then we have a
much greater problem that I had imagined.

> As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
> module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
> etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
> console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
> not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
> worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
> caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
> for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
> think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
> keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
> move forward.
> 
> As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
> the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
> was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
> didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
> (though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
> it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
> preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
> contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
> well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
> builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
> appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
> check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
> and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
> sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
> strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
> I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
> how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
> try something different for the release after.
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
>> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
>> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> >> working toward are.
>> >
>> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
>> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
>> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
>> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
>> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
>> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
>> > immensely.
>>
>> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
>> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
>> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
>> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
>> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
>> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>>
>> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
>> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>>
>> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
>> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
>> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
>> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
>> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
>> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
>> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >
>> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
>> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
>> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
>> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
>> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
>> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
>> >
>> > Just my $0.02.
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

In the spirit of greater openness and communication, please elaborate
on 'thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo'.

As far as I can tell, the main source of the 1.1 delay was that the
module ID changes (new syntax, groupless or versionless dependencies,
etc.) caused a ton of problems, in the TCK, the deployment tools, the
console, and so on.  When the original deadline came, the product was
not stable enough to ship.  I'm sure that some of the features I've
worked on have contributed -- mainly the keystore changes, which
caused some TCK failures until we updated the keystore configuration
for it.  Still, we've talked about some of the reasons for this, and I
think we all want to try to make the 1.2 changes more incremental and
keep the TCK passing at all times to avoid major disconnects as we
move forward.

As far as the release schedule goes, I'm disappointed that we missed
the deadline, and then didn't really update our road map...  If there
was a new target date or plan it seemed pretty informal -- there
didn't seem to be anything posted to the dev list or the web site, etc
(though based on Jeff's comments it sounds like there was and I missed
it?).  Now we're trying to put out a release when our only
preview/release candidate has been available for less than a week.  I
contrast that to the SuSE process where there were at least 12
well-defined test builds (9 or more beta builds and 3 or more RC
builds) at well-defined interrvals.  As a user, I certainly
appreciated that I could get and try the latest, submit bug reports,
check the release calendar for the date of the next test build, get it
and test the fixes, etc.  I don't think that one build and 72 hours is
sufficient to convince me that 1.1 is a stable release.  I don't feel
strongly enough to override a majority opinion, if there is one, but
I'd like to try a much more SuSE-like release strategy for 1.2 and see
how it goes.  If that doesn't work so well either, we'll regroup and
try something different for the release after.

Thanks,
    Aaron

On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Snyder wrote:
> > On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
> >> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
> >> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> >> working toward are.
> >
> > I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
> > calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
> > all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> > revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> > suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
> > organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> > immensely.
>
> I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
> helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
> talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
> extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
> consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
> share Matt's feelings and frustrations.
>
> Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
> these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.
>
> It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
> talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
> that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
> these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
> clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
> way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
> communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.
>
> Jeff
>
> >
> > A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> > good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> > cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> > might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> > any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> > But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> >
> > Just my $0.02.
> >
> > Bruce
>

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Jeff Genender <jg...@apache.org>]

Bruce Snyder wrote:
> On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> 
>> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
>> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
>> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
>> working toward are.
> 
> I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
> calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
> all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
> revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
> suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
> organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
> immensely.

I have to disagree here.  Although I absolutely agree a roadmap is
helpful and trackable, the timeline and release issues that Matt has
talked about is clearly an issue.  On these lists, Matt has made things
extremely clear regarding when our releases should be, along with group
consensus, and thing have been "quietly" injected into Geronimo.  I
share Matt's feelings and frustrations.

Minimally, if we cannot hold to a simple date based on agreement on
these lists, a roadmap, although helpful, will surely not be a panacea.

It is also my hope that there are not private emails going around
talking about "secret" agendas.  This would dismay me as I fully expect
that we are all adult enough to share our feelings with each other in
these lists.  If an email like this is being passed around, then we
clearly need to be working on our communication skills and have a long
way to go on learning to work with each other as a team.  I think
communication is the primary thing we need to deal with.

Jeff

> 
> A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
> good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
> cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
> might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
> any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
> But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.
> 
> Just my $0.02.
> 
> Bruce

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>]

On 6/8/06, Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:

> I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
> claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
> it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
> working toward are.

I agree with Aaron here - publicity of not only the timeline (i.e., a
calendar of release schedules maybe) but also the Road Map may help on
all fronts. IMO we should consider publishing and continually
revisiting both of these items. I know that this won't be a popular
suggestion on the committer side of things because we are a volunteer
organization, but it would most certainly help our user community
immensely.

A wiki page of the Road Map along with a rough timeline would be a
good start. I also think that tying the Road Map to a timeline will
cause people to more closely examine the time a particular feature
might require. But like the Linux kernel release schedule, determining
any kind of regular release schedule may prove to be quite difficult.
But IMO it can't hurt to have goals.

Just my $0.02.

Bruce
-- 
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'

Apache Geronimo - http://geronimo.apache.org/
Apache ActiveMQ - http://incubator.apache.org/activemq/
Apache ServiceMix - http://incubator.apache.org/servicemix/
Castor - http://castor.org/

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> Aaron,
>>
>> I like the schedule below.  From a 1.1 perspective I think we made 
>> several mistakes.  We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear 
>> about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few 
>> did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the 
>> rework).  After that we let the TCK stumble, etc.
>>
>> From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a 
>> significant release.  I would like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after 
>> we cut 1.1.  For that release I want to address outstanding JIRAs, 
>> usability and performance.  
> When I hear "usability and performance", I hear feature improvements and 
> additions, not patching.  Let us not repeat the same mistake with a 
> patch branch.

I think the terms are overloaded and do require some clarification.  I'd like to move them out of 
this unrelated thread though...will start a new one.

>> Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in helping 
>> out there as well.  I'll start another thread on that topic when we 
>> get 1.1 out the door.
>>
>> I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some 
>> incremental 1.1.x releases it might fill in the gaps nicely.
> 
> *.*.x should be for patches.  What you seem to be proposing is 
> dangerous.  I wonder if I am missing something.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Alan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

["Alan D. Cabrera" <li...@toolazydogs.com>]

Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Aaron,
>
> I like the schedule below.  From a 1.1 perspective I think we made 
> several mistakes.  We were optimistic about our time, we were unclear 
> about the content, we disrupted development for many while only a few 
> did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the 
> rework).  After that we let the TCK stumble, etc.
>
> From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a 
> significant release.  I would like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after 
> we cut 1.1.  For that release I want to address outstanding JIRAs, 
> usability and performance.  
When I hear "usability and performance", I hear feature improvements and 
additions, not patching.  Let us not repeat the same mistake with a 
patch branch.
> Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in helping 
> out there as well.  I'll start another thread on that topic when we 
> get 1.1 out the door.
>
> I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some 
> incremental 1.1.x releases it might fill in the gaps nicely.

*.*.x should be for patches.  What you seem to be proposing is 
dangerous.  I wonder if I am missing something.


Regards,
Alan

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>]

Aaron,

I like the schedule below.  From a 1.1 perspective I think we made several mistakes.  We were 
optimistic about our time, we were unclear about the content, we disrupted development for many 
while only a few did the lion's share of the work (Dain and Jencks, has off for the rework).  After 
that we let the TCK stumble, etc.

 From your outline below I think it matches what would follow as a significant release.  I would 
like to start a 1.1.1 branch right after we cut 1.1.  For that release I want to address outstanding 
JIRAs, usability and performance.  Hopefully there will be a few others that are interested in 
helping out there as well.  I'll start another thread on that topic when we get 1.1 out the door.

I think the timeframe below seems a bit long but perhaps with some incremental 1.1.x releases it 
might fill in the gaps nicely.

Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good.  Can you put together a time table representation of
>> this idea?  It would help me understand the nuances.
> 
> Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2:
> 
> June 12: 1.1 released
>   - select release manager for 1.2
>   - set goals for 1.2
> July 1: 1.2-M1 released
> July 21: 1.2-M2 released
> August 14: 1.2-beta1 released
> Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features
> Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs
>   - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created
> Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released
> Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2
> Oct 1: release 1.2
> 
> Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release.
> And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1
> then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan.  What
> do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
>    Aaron
> 
> 
> 

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

3.5 months for the planned cycle seems a bit two long especially when  
you think it would be reasonable to bump it for something important.   
I personally would like to see 2 months planned, so if it runs long  
we are closer to 3 months instead of 4.

-dain

On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:22 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
>> Sounds good.  Can you put together a time table representation of
>> this idea?  It would help me understand the nuances.
>
> Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2:
>
> June 12: 1.1 released
>   - select release manager for 1.2
>   - set goals for 1.2
> July 1: 1.2-M1 released
> July 21: 1.2-M2 released
> August 14: 1.2-beta1 released
> Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features
> Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs
>   - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created
> Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released
> Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2
> Oct 1: release 1.2
>
> Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release.
> And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1
> then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan.  What
> do you think?
>
> Thanks,
>    Aaron

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

On 6/9/06, Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com> wrote:
> Sounds good.  Can you put together a time table representation of
> this idea?  It would help me understand the nuances.

Hypothentically speaking, here's a 3.5-month schedule for 1.2:

June 12: 1.1 released
   - select release manager for 1.2
   - set goals for 1.2
July 1: 1.2-M1 released
July 21: 1.2-M2 released
August 14: 1.2-beta1 released
Sep 1: 1.2-beta2 released, no new features
Sep 14: 1.2-rc1 released, no non-critical bugs
   - 1.3-SNAPSHOT branch created
Sep 21: 1.2-rc2 released
Sep 27: vote on 1.2-rc2 as 1.2
Oct 1: release 1.2

Though perhaps we could move the feature/bug freezes down one release.
 And, of course, if a lot of problems were discovered in, say, 1.2-rc1
then perhaps we'd introduce an extra 1-2 week rc into the plan.  What
do you think?

Thanks,
    Aaron

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>]

On Jun 8, 2006, at 5:44 PM, Aaron Mulder wrote:

> I propose for 1.2 we drive it more by time than by features.  That is,
> we lay out a schedule including builds every 2-3 weeks, initially
> milestone builds, becoming beta and RC builds.  We try to get people
> to test and provide feedback on the builds as we go, and we expect
> that we'll have some issues early to mid-way through the process but
> have clear dates for feature freeze, no bugs fixes except blockers,
> branch for the next release, etc.  We may have to adjust the schedule
> depending on what develops, but at least we'll know what we're
> targeting at all times.  Then we'll have to huddle after the 1.2
> release and decide whether this was an improvement over the 1.1
> process or not, and decide how to go for 1.3/2.0.

Sounds good.  Can you put together a time table representation of  
this idea?  It would help me understand the nuances.

Thanks,

-dain

Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager

[Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>]

Boy, you _are_ a little frustrated.

I think it will help to have the schedule of the release.  No one can
claim IBM has a secret agenda if the time line is laid out there.  And
it's easy to wink if no one has any idea what the deadlines we're
working toward are.

I propose for 1.2 we drive it more by time than by features.  That is,
we lay out a schedule including builds every 2-3 weeks, initially
milestone builds, becoming beta and RC builds.  We try to get people
to test and provide feedback on the builds as we go, and we expect
that we'll have some issues early to mid-way through the process but
have clear dates for feature freeze, no bugs fixes except blockers,
branch for the next release, etc.  We may have to adjust the schedule
depending on what develops, but at least we'll know what we're
targeting at all times.  Then we'll have to huddle after the 1.2
release and decide whether this was an improvement over the 1.1
process or not, and decide how to go for 1.3/2.0.

I ended up using the SuSE 10.1 betas and RC's during their
dev/test/release process, and it went very much like the above
(including at least one adjustment to the schedule in mid-stream).
But it was nice to have a schedule laid out, to always be able to see
the date the next test build was expected, etc.  I'd like to give it a
try.

We may have to play things a little by ear in deciding how to deal
with plugins and which releases we try to create in-place upgrades for
(vs. fresh install only), but I think that's all manageable.

Thanks,
    Aaron

P.S. Maybe we'll get to see if the "Chariot agenda" is any better than
the "IBM agenda."  :)

On 6/8/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> I previously sent out an e-mail regarding the freezing of the branches/1.1 code so we can march to a
> release.   I expect you could tell by the tone of the e-mail that I was very frustrated.  My
> frustration arose from a private e-mail asking if IBM had some secret agenda and if that was the
> reason I was trying to move the release out.  This really set me off.
>
> You will have to be the judge as to whether IBM yields any undue influence on the project; I believe
> the answer is no.  From my perspective, IBM goes out of its way to make sure we do not "force" the
> community.  We carefully consider how we interact in the community.  not only about how we conduct
> ourselves but what the appearance of our actions might be perceived.  Yes, we base a server offering
> on Geronimo and we do have a vested interest in seeing the project succeed; however, so do a number
> of other companies.  It is always a challenge to balance contribution and influence to ensure your
> growing the ecosystem and I think we do a damn good job of it.  IMHO we actually are too conservative.
>
> The reason I'm trying to move the release along is because it has been OVER FIVE MONTHS since we
> have given our users anything else to look at.  Does anyone remember who they are?  These are the
> developers who we're trying to create something for.  Developers that will be interested in using
> our project.  I don't know about you but in this fast paced world of development people don't sit
> around waiting for FIVE MONTHS for anything.  They will choose something else and then you've lost
> them.  You've broken their confidence on your ability to deliver and consequently they'll be less
> likely to believe you'll deliver when you say you will.
>
> I am not pushing the release because of some secret IBM agenda.  I'm embarrassed that WE can't seem
> to deliver something.  Originally we said end of January and then discovered that we had some
> refactoring to do.  It will only take a few weeks we thought.  Two months later (and stalled
> development on new innovation) we set a target date of April 28th.  Yes, I chose the date but it was
> four weeks from the day I suggested it; we seemed to have consensus.  Unfortunately we found that
> our changes (they were the right thing to do) caused us lots of heart burn in CTS testing.  Few
> people were able to help with that for whatever reason so it was a long slow grind.  We burned up
> April and then started into May.  Java One was in there for a week so we basically lost two more weeks.
>
> Continuing to try and get a release out we've diagnosed performance problems, survived an SVN outage
> at Apache, a Codehaus outage, I've written numerous e-mails about getting 1.1 out and yet we are
> still not in lock step as to what we're trying to accomplish.
>
> In short, yes, I am frustrated not because some secret IBM plan is not coming to fruition but
> because the community, of which I am apart, is dysfunctional to the point of laughability.  We are
> now under Review and Commit.  We're not doing well there either but that is likely a separate thread
> for discussion.  I know we're a volunteer organization but I hope that being part of a project makes
> us a team.
>
> If we cannot begin to operate like a team its going to be a slow painful process.
>
> So, to answer the question about why I'm pushing to get a release out, there is no secret IBM plot.
>   I simply want to get this release out to break the log jam on development.  In one e-mail thread
> it was posed that new features were being added to a frozen branch and that was met with a wink.
> One person simply said maybe we need balance, will you help me on the next release?  Wow, what about
> this one.  Are we a team or a bunch of people that act as an Army of One.
>
> I'll post another note with the schedule of the release.
>
> Yes, I'm frustrated.  I know others are as well.
>
> Matt
>