You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org> on 2002/08/17 04:06:43 UTC
CVS Access is a privlidge
Hi,
Recently it has become obvious that certain people are no longer even paying
lip service to the development process of APache. Several times I have
noticed people have been ignoring the basic organization process as outlined
in
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/guidelines.html
and particularly
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
It must be realized that CVS access is a privlidge and if you abuse it it will
be revoked. I hope the people who are doing this rectify the situation before
we are forced to revoke access.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
---------------------------------------------------
"Therefore it can be said that victorious warriors
win first, and then go to battle, while defeated
warriors go to battle first, and then seek to win."
- Sun Tzu, the Art Of War
---------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: CVS Access is a privlidge
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
> Peter,
>
>> http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
>>
>> It must be realized that CVS access is a privlidge and if you abuse
>> it it will be revoked. I hope the people who are doing this rectify
>> the situation before we are forced to revoke access.
>>
> As someone who's done a few unilateral things in the last few weeks, I
> feel a bit nervous. I thought that, say, upgrading xerces to 2.0.2 in
> Phoenix would be a good thing. I've also done much to many Excalibur
> xdocs and build files facilitating the site being pushed out. It
> might be nice to elaborate a little Peter as there surely is a cut off
> point on changes.. ?
Paul:
I totally confident that Pete isn't referring to you - heck, your doing
to great job - don't stop.
In fact I'm not sure who Pete is referring to in his email.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: CVS Access is a privlidge
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:20, Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
>>>Things that have been vetoed get committed and never reverted.
>>>
>>>
>>It's amazing - the same thing happened to me just this morning - someone
>>made a change on something someone else committed that I'm an author of
>>- and guess what, they haven't reverted it. What should do about this ?
>>
>>
>
>errr .... you can't veto a veto. It is your responsibility to convince me that
>you are correct,
>
I've tried - you consistently fail to answer.
Do the world a favor and address the issue. You have failed consistently
to respond to detailed emails. Your abuse of the -1 process is absurd. I
have already notified you that I consider this void. Nobody has stepped
up to argue on you behalf, and you have failed to provide any
intelligent input to the process. Please Pete - take a step back and
look at what you are doing to the commmunity.
>get me ejected from avalon
>
Pete - your grandstanding again ;-)
Personally, I'm really not fussed if your here in Avalon or not - its
neutral - you contribution are great but your control paranoia is
equally negative. With you here stuff happens because you engaged, and
with you stuff doesn't happen because you like screwing others around.
Without your contribution things would be different - more things and
more innovation from other people will happen - but Phoenix would
probably die. That's ok, I can live without Phoenix. Today it's a
neutral line. You are an asset but you also a liability. End result -
you're moving real close to becoming a zero value proposition! Based on
that I'm not going bother to try to get you ejected from Avalon - no
real benefit to me relative to the effort needed - at the end of the day
I'll work around you - things will continue to happen - and I'll join
that camp of people that say "oh-no, it's from Pete".
I agree with Nicolas - your a great coder - its a just a shame about the
those other attributes.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: CVS Access is a privlidge
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 18:20, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> >Things that have been vetoed get committed and never reverted.
>
> It's amazing - the same thing happened to me just this morning - someone
> made a change on something someone else committed that I'm an author of
> - and guess what, they haven't reverted it. What should do about this ?
errr .... you can't veto a veto. It is your responsibility to convince me that
you are correct, get me ejected from avalon or get everyone else in avalon to
state my argument is not valid.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-----------------------------------------------
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and
human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the
former." -Albert Einstein
-----------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: CVS Access is a privlidge
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:45, Paul Hammant wrote:
>
>>>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
>>>
>>>It must be realized that CVS access is a privlidge and if you abuse it it
>>>will be revoked. I hope the people who are doing this rectify the
>>>situation before we are forced to revoke access.
>>>
>>As someone who's done a few unilateral things in the last few weeks, I
>>feel a bit nervous. I thought that, say, upgrading xerces to 2.0.2 in
>>Phoenix would be a good thing. I've also done much to many Excalibur
>>xdocs and build files facilitating the site being pushed out. It might
>>be nice to elaborate a little Peter as there surely is a cut off point
>>on changes.. ?
>>
>
>No thats all fine.
>
That's what I thought too!
>The main point is that the decision process is often
>ignored.
>
I was thinking this myself. There are times ... you know the situation
... you do something after a process of discussion, you think you have
consensus, you spend a few hours of your time putting in place something
valuable, and then out of the woodwork some
two-bit-hairy-noised-little-Hitler turns around and issues posts a -1
without any rational explanation.
Yes, Pete - I'm totally with you on this one + 365 ... one for every day
of the year - the decision process must be respected - when anyone
invokes a -1 they have to put the time and effort into providing a god
rational explination of what the issue is - even better ... to provide a
better proposal.
>Things that have been vetoed get committed and never reverted.
>
It's amazing - the same thing happened to me just this morning - someone
made a change on something someone else committed that I'm an author of
- and guess what, they haven't reverted it. What should do about this ?
I think its reasonably clear - when you got into situations like this
you need to move from confrontation into communication - its probably a
good thing to discuss the issue - try and figure out a common solution -
collaborate - but you and I both know that sometime this doesn't slide
the way you want it to. I guess that's just part of the process - go
with the flow.
>
>Unless people object to your changes I say go for it! Especially when they
>end up in better state than when you started. This is essentially Lazy
>consensus.
>
>However when people object you need to address their concerns and get them to
>agree, if that is not possible you need to revert the changes.
>
Totally with you here - it must be fate - but exactly the same thing
happened to me on exactly this point this morning (I know the level of
coincidence is amazing) - someone did something that I objected to
(something silly relating to component reuse, compatibility with earlier
releases, etc.), and guess what - I tried to address the concern, but I
haven't go an answer back yet - what should I do? Maybe I should just
revert the CVS - but this is like totally ignoring the guy - but my real
problem is that the guy isn't talking about his issues - to be frank -
he's just behaving like a PITA and I don't know what to do.
Pete - you've been playing this game longer that I have - what do you
think the best approach is in a situation like this? Should I just
ignore him and get on with what I need to do, or should I escalate the
issue?
Cheers Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: CVS Access is a privlidge
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 14:45, Paul Hammant wrote:
> >http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
> >
> >It must be realized that CVS access is a privlidge and if you abuse it it
> > will be revoked. I hope the people who are doing this rectify the
> > situation before we are forced to revoke access.
>
> As someone who's done a few unilateral things in the last few weeks, I
> feel a bit nervous. I thought that, say, upgrading xerces to 2.0.2 in
> Phoenix would be a good thing. I've also done much to many Excalibur
> xdocs and build files facilitating the site being pushed out. It might
> be nice to elaborate a little Peter as there surely is a cut off point
> on changes.. ?
No thats all fine. The main point is that the decision process is often
ignored. Things that have been vetoed get committed and never reverted.
Unless people object to your changes I say go for it! Especially when they
end up in better state than when you started. This is essentially Lazy
consensus.
However when people object you need to address their concerns and get them to
agree, if that is not possible you need to revert the changes. One thing that
must be mentioned though is that people can not object to things that they
are not a developer/user for.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
Einstein argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because
God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software
engineer.
- Fred Brooks, Jr.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: CVS Access is a privlidge
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Peter,
>http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html
>
>It must be realized that CVS access is a privlidge and if you abuse it it will
>be revoked. I hope the people who are doing this rectify the situation before
>we are forced to revoke access.
>
As someone who's done a few unilateral things in the last few weeks, I
feel a bit nervous. I thought that, say, upgrading xerces to 2.0.2 in
Phoenix would be a good thing. I've also done much to many Excalibur
xdocs and build files facilitating the site being pushed out. It might
be nice to elaborate a little Peter as there surely is a cut off point
on changes.. ?
Regards,
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>