You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to community@apache.org by ac...@apache.org on 2003/01/28 21:08:40 UTC
Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions about wiki
----- Original Message -----
From: "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>
To: <gs...@apache.org>; <ac...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:12 PM
Subject: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you are the Chairman of
the Board, and Andrew, you've been a proponent of Wiki. Since I only know
about a discussion secondhand, I can only imagine what is being discussed,
here's my take. Also, Mr. Stein, just in case you are fuming mad at me,
don't let my comments color your view of Mr. Oliver - I've never met him. )
I also know that emails with headers are very pompous, so bear with me. I
feel like I'm writing a friend of the court brief for the "Board vs. Wiki".
**** Facts
1. infrastructure@ was indeed a private list at the time of the discussion
in question. Please also note, that it wasn't a private list for years, and
only because Yours Truly spoke up, it was closed. That was the right
decision. Glad I could help.
2. An idea from infrastructure was posted on Wiki. No names were associated
with that idea. The only thing I would take back was the verbatim copy. I
might have reworded it. IT SHOULD BE NOTED, that I also created a page
advocating mailing lists, because even though I "Wiki" - I somewhat agree
that Wiki is not always the best place to discuss.
**** A hypothetical situation
1. Assume that Dirk wrote a message to a private list, in which he argued
for the adoption of a certificate-based security scheme for the ASF. Now
also assume that at the end of that message he makes the following
(paraphrased) statement. (Dirk, please forgive me for using you as an
example - I didn't single you out for any reason...).
"I don't think that a certificate-based security scheme is a good idea. The
ASF has a large amount of experience securing our CVS servers and our Unix
accounts. I also don't think that we have the infrastructure to support a
truly secure CA. Plus, why would we "throw away" our years of experience
for something like Subversion."
2. Let's say that someone (let's say Tim O'Brien), doesn't necessarily agree
or disagree with the above statement, and I decide that Wiki might be a good
avenue for the discussion - I decide that both sides of the argument need to
be represented and while the discussion might actually be driven by comments
from infrastructure@ ( which at the time was public ), no one's name is
directly mentioned, and both sides are given the chance to argue.
Posting an "idea" on an open forum is not inappropriate at all. What would
be inappropriate would be if someone posted, "Dirk, a member of the board,
posted a message on infrastructure to the effect of X, and I think he's just
wrong, and even though the list was private, I'm gonna jump up and down and
tell everybody about it." That's definitely not what happened - here's what
*really* happened in that situation:
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Subversion/WhyNotToUseSubversio
n
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Subversion/WhyUseSubversion
Now that page languished for a long time, but if you've notice, it has shown
some activity of late. People are adding names to a list of people who want
Subversion installed. People have added new positive and negative
arguments. The discussion on the mailing list influenced the pages, and the
pages serve the purpose of archiving two opposing viewpoints. IN ADDITION,
I fully expect people to start adding FAQ pages about Subversion @ ASF.
**** I have nothing to lose
I use ASF software heavily. I contribute to projects, documentation, etc.
I convince large corporations to not only use but to contribute to the
effort.
Unless the ASF specifically modifies the Apache License to single me out,
you can't prevent me from using and contributing. I'm not a committer, you
can take nothing away from me.
On the other hand, if someone shuts down Wiki because an idea from a private
list was anonymously expressed, ASF will lose an important form of
collaboration, AND it will set a precendent for moving ASF even further
toward a more secret - a more closed - a more corporate form of
collaboration. I didn't mean to, but I guess I forced the issue.
--------
Tim O'Brien
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Please explain why you find this pattern 'repugnant' on a mail list, but
> you don't on a CVS repository.
Since I promised I had finished arguing this, I replied privately.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> Ben Hyde said:
>
>>Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few
>>megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn
>>out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
>
>
> I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is
> obviously a penalty a list must pay if it has no archives.
True. In fact, this list voted to have a public archive in place. The
fact that such archive is not existing is merely a do-ocracy issue:
nobody cared enough to create the archive.
> From what I've been able to glean from people's selective memory and mail
> quotes, the lack of archives is simply an oversight. What that tells me
> is that there was never an intention to discuss anything private on this
> list. Rather, the purpose of closing this list seems to have been
> intended to keep out unwanted opinion. I still find this repugnant.
Look again. The intention of the people who voted to keep it closed is
to keep the signal/noise ratio high enough so that people can cope with it.
> I will reiterate my arguments, then I'll go away for to save you all the
> pain of my opinions:
>
> 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed. The Apache community
> consists of more than just committers.
The majority of the people which are interested (quite a lot, that
votation was the most voted poll in the entire history of the
foundation) voted to keep it closed to try to improve the signal/noise
ratio but also recognized the necessity to make available to the public
the entire discussions so allowed a public archive to be available.
> What about the thousands of people
> who have made substantial contributions to Apache by submitting important
> patches, filing detailed bug reports, answering questions on users lists,
> etc? You can guarantee that many of these people have contributed more to
> Apache than many committers.
>
> 2. Excluding outside opinions hurts us all. It limits our perspective, it
> inhibits the recruitment of new participants, and it makes us seem like a
> bunch of stuck-up "cool kids" who just want to keep to ourselves.
>
> And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
>
> I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate
> in.
CVS repositories are open for read and closed for write to people who
deserved that right.
This is an ASF-wide community mail list. It's open for read (just didn't
happen yet) and closed for write to people who deserved that right.
Since we have CVS and mail list oversight on code and we can always roll
back, we could, in theory, let everybody write on CVS and filter them
out later.
We could apply the same policy here.
Since the ASF decided for closing down the CVS repositories and filter
people *before* they are given the ability to modify the code, we are
applying the same pattern here.
Please explain why you find this pattern 'repugnant' on a mail list, but
you don't on a CVS repository.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi <st...@apache.org>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> I will reiterate my arguments, then I'll go away for to save you all the
> pain of my opinions:
better, hold on to your opinions and read the archives as soon
as they're available. *then* give us the pain. :-)
> 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed. The Apache community
> consists of more than just committers.
not the community for which this list was created, it doesn't.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> Ben Hyde said:
>> Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few
>> megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn
>> out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
>
> I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is
> obviously a penalty a list must pay if it has no archives.
Sorry if that seemed directed at anyone in particular. It was intended
it more as a plea to the collective hive-mind to attempt to heal rather
than claw at old wounds that are now presumably healing. Sort of a
hope we could move on to next thing.
- ben
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: [PROPOSE] Identify and describe community@ on site
Posted by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>.
I did not want to mix up my own personal views with the proposal, here they
are.
1. Since community is to be archived on Eyebrowse, it only makes sense to
advertise the existence of this list on the website.
2. I attempted to choose language that would be as non-controversial as
possible. There is no reasoning given for why the list is open or closed,
the text simply states the facts as they are.
3. I'm not even sure if I'm allowed to make a proposal (not a committer),
but I thought I try anyway. I will not be adding any +1, +/-0, or -1 - I am
voteless.
--------
Tim O'Brien
> -----Original Message-----
> From: O'brien, Tim [mailto:tobrien@transolutions.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 3:33 PM
> To: community@apache.org
> Subject: [PROPOSE] Identify and describe community@ on site
>
>
> It is proposed that the community list be archived through
> Eyebrowse on nagoya, and it is also proposed that the
> following patch be applied to the Foundation's mailing list
> page on www.apache.org. A patch is included to this effect.
>
> PATCH BEGINS HERE:
>
> Index: mailinglists.xml
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /home/cvspublic/site/xdocs/foundation/mailinglists.xml,v
> retrieving revision 1.13
> diff -u -r1.13 mailinglists.xml
> --- mailinglists.xml 28 Jan 2003 11:40:54 -0000 1.13
> +++ mailinglists.xml 29 Jan 2003 21:24:40 -0000
> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
> <section><title>Foundation Mailing Lists</title>
> <ul>
> <li><a href="#foundation-announce">Apache News and
> Announcements</a></li>
> + <li><a href="#foundation-community">Apache Community
> Discussion</a></li>
> <li><a href="#foundation-apachecon">Conference
> Announcements list</a></li>
> <li><a href="#foundation-members">Foundation member
> discussions</a></li>
> <li><a href="#foundation-board">Board of Directors
> list</a></li> @@ -101,6 +102,37 @@
> </tr>
> </table>
> </section>
> +
> +<section id="foundation-community"><title>Apache Community
> Discussion</title>
> +
> +<p>
> +The <code>community@apache.org</code> mailing list is used
> by members
> +of the Apache community to discuss issues relating to the
> foundation.
> +This list is archived for the benefit of the larger Apache
> community.
> +Individuals with committer status may subscribe to this list. While
> +subscription to this list is not open to the public, a committer may
> +invite a non-committer to participate in this discussion. </p>
> +
> +<table>
> + <tr>
> + <td>Volume:</td>
> + <td>Moderate</td>
> + </tr>
> + <tr>
> + <td>Subscription address:</td>
> + <td>Subscription is not open to the general public. See the
> + list description.</td>
> + </tr>
> + <tr>
> + <td>Archives:</td>
> + <td>
> + <a
> href="http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=108"
> + >community list archives from Eyebrowse</a></td>
> + </tr>
> +</table>
> +</section>
> +
>
> <section id="foundation-apachecon"><title>Apache Conference
> Announcements</title>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
[PROPOSE] Identify and describe community@ on site
Posted by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>.
It is proposed that the community list be archived through Eyebrowse on
nagoya, and it is also proposed that the following patch be applied to the
Foundation's mailing list page on www.apache.org. A patch is included to
this effect.
PATCH BEGINS HERE:
Index: mailinglists.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /home/cvspublic/site/xdocs/foundation/mailinglists.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -r1.13 mailinglists.xml
--- mailinglists.xml 28 Jan 2003 11:40:54 -0000 1.13
+++ mailinglists.xml 29 Jan 2003 21:24:40 -0000
@@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
<section><title>Foundation Mailing Lists</title>
<ul>
<li><a href="#foundation-announce">Apache News and
Announcements</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#foundation-community">Apache Community
Discussion</a></li>
<li><a href="#foundation-apachecon">Conference Announcements
list</a></li>
<li><a href="#foundation-members">Foundation member
discussions</a></li>
<li><a href="#foundation-board">Board of Directors list</a></li>
@@ -101,6 +102,37 @@
</tr>
</table>
</section>
+
+<section id="foundation-community"><title>Apache Community
Discussion</title>
+
+<p>
+The <code>community@apache.org</code> mailing list is used by
+members of the Apache community to discuss issues relating to the
+foundation. This list is archived for the benefit of the larger Apache
+community. Individuals with committer status may subscribe to this list.
+While subscription to this list is not open to the public, a committer may
+invite a non-committer to participate in this discussion.
+</p>
+
+<table>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Volume:</td>
+ <td>Moderate</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Subscription address:</td>
+ <td>Subscription is not open to the general public. See the
+ list description.</td>
+ </tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>Archives:</td>
+ <td>
+ <a
href="http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=108"
+ >community list archives from Eyebrowse</a></td>
+ </tr>
+</table>
+</section>
+
<section id="foundation-apachecon"><title>Apache Conference
Announcements</title>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Sander Striker wrote:
> >> 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed.
> >
> > Yes. It has been a misnomer from the start.
>
> and apparently some members of the minority seem unable to just let
> go and accept and work with the will of the majority, preferring
> to snipe any time the opportunity arises.
Because I like to be constructive, I'm going to go ask
marc.theaimsgroup.com to archive this list (and a couple others). With an
open history, at least this list won't be a big black box.
I'm not sure how marc works, but in case they need to subscribe, could the
moderator please watch for it and let them through.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:30 PM
[...]
> nothing personal, sander. my response would be the same for
> anyone else making that remark.
No problem. I probably should've kept my mouth shut or been
more verbose in my response. And maybe I should have consulted
the archives, because my memory on these matters is certainly
starting to fade...
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ma...@mvdb.net>.
> sorry, but not only has this been a really bad week for me, but
> i'm bloody well sick and tired of people using this list to
> look back on what they (as a minority) thought was done wrong,
You can make any comment you like this week Ken :) Thanx for warning us..
http://golux.com/coar/blog/index?entry=129&comments=true
Hope the rest of your week will be full of love ;)
I'll leave you at peace now. Juset let us know when the love comes rolling
in..
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Sander Striker wrote:
>> 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed.
>
> Yes. It has been a misnomer from the start.
and apparently some members of the minority seem unable to just let
go and accept and work with the will of the majority, preferring
to snipe any time the opportunity arises.
sorry, but not only has this been a really bad week for me, but
i'm bloody well sick and tired of people using this list to
look back on what they (as a minority) thought was done wrong,
rather than using it to look forward on how to do things right.
or at least better.
nothing personal, sander. my response would be the same for
anyone else making that remark.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> > 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed.
>
> Yes. It has been a misnomer from the start.
And that was debated at great (and extremely painful) length on the reorg@
list before the new list was setup.
Remember the community@ list was supposed to be a cure for many of the ills
that people saw in the ASF and it's organisation...
david
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Joshua Slive [mailto:joshua@slive.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 4:27 PM
> Ben Hyde said:
> > Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few
> > megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn
> > out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
>
> I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is
> obviously a penalty a list must pay if it has no archives.
There's always the ezmlm get syntax which allows you to get to the
messages. I'll agree if you think it is a horrible interface ;)
> I will reiterate my arguments, then I'll go away for to save you all the
> pain of my opinions:
>
> 1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed.
Yes. It has been a misnomer from the start.
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> There is only one way to change stuff at apache : put it up for a vote.
Actually, my observation is that votes are used extremely rarely. Apache
decisions are almost-always consensus-based. Rare issues do come along
that require votes, but only after we have done our best to work towards
consensus.
I see no point in voting on this issue, since it seems I haven't haven't
changed anybody's opinion since the last vote. But that does not stop me
from trying.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ma...@mvdb.net>.
> > Live with it, unsubscribe or put up a vote to have it your way.
> Just stop
> > complaining about it.
>
> No.
>
> Complaining about what we think is wrong -- using reasoned arguments -- is
> the CORRECT way to make changes.
>
There is only one way to change stuff at apache : put it up for a vote.
The complaining part was about that I read a post about this stuff all the
time and I think we all (ehh should speak for myself: at least I) got the
picture by now.
I have no problem in discussing it and my intention is not to silence you if
you want to go on about this, but at some point you have to draw conclusions
and make a choice and the choices you can make are specified above. I tried
to say to you "It's time to make a choice". Probably should have added more
text, but for once I wanted to come straight to the point :).
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Martin van den Bemt wrote:
> > And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
> >
> > I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate
> > in.
>
> Live with it, unsubscribe or put up a vote to have it your way. Just stop
> complaining about it.
No.
Complaining about what we think is wrong -- using reasoned arguments -- is
the CORRECT way to make changes.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Martin van den Bemt wrote:
>>And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
>>
>>I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate
>>in.
>
>
> Live with it, unsubscribe or put up a vote to have it your way. Just stop
> complaining about it.
Leave them alone, we need some Statler & Waldorfs over here if this is a
real 'community' ;-D
(BTW: I'm Waldorf, and I voted +1 on total openness)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ma...@mvdb.net>.
> > > in.
> >
> > Live with it, unsubscribe or put up a vote to have it your way.
> Just stop
> > complaining about it.
>
> Do people actually believe that having a poll will make these issues go
> away???????
Nope.. That's why I gave 3 choices..
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> > And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
> >
> > I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate
> > in.
>
> Live with it, unsubscribe or put up a vote to have it your way. Just stop
> complaining about it.
Do people actually believe that having a poll will make these issues go
away???????
david
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ma...@mvdb.net>.
> And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
>
> I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate
> in.
Live with it, unsubscribe or put up a vote to have it your way. Just stop
complaining about it.
Mvgr,
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
Ben Hyde said:
> Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few
> megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn
> out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
I've already apologized twice for rehashing an old issue, but that is
obviously a penalty a list must pay if it has no archives.
>From what I've been able to glean from people's selective memory and mail
quotes, the lack of archives is simply an oversight. What that tells me
is that there was never an intention to discuss anything private on this
list. Rather, the purpose of closing this list seems to have been
intended to keep out unwanted opinion. I still find this repugnant.
I will reiterate my arguments, then I'll go away for to save you all the
pain of my opinions:
1. The list is, at minimum, terribly misnamed. The Apache community
consists of more than just committers. What about the thousands of people
who have made substantial contributions to Apache by submitting important
patches, filing detailed bug reports, answering questions on users lists,
etc? You can guarantee that many of these people have contributed more to
Apache than many committers.
2. Excluding outside opinions hurts us all. It limits our perspective, it
inhibits the recruitment of new participants, and it makes us seem like a
bunch of stuck-up "cool kids" who just want to keep to ourselves.
And no, allowing "invited guests" does not eliminate either problem.
I'm not sure this is the type of "community" that I want to participate
in.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
> understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
> plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@,
> members@, pmc@, committers@ for announcements, etc). It is hard for me to
> think of any issue that we would want to discuss on community that would
> need to be private only to committers.
My personal understanding was that it would be open to anyone we wish to
see here; and by default to all committers.
Dw
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
um, the decision was to have open archives but subscriber-only
posting, iirc. that makes the list open for viewing as you seem
to be saying it is not, joshua, while also satisfying the people
who don't want it to be *wide* open and allowing drive-by
comments and spam. it is a directed list for asf committers,
*not* an open list for discussion about apache by the general
public. you want the latter, request/propose it -- but please
refrain from rehashing and trying to repurpose something that
has already been decided.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> We did NOT vote to close the list. We voted to limit access to
> committers AND INVITED participants. If Andrew does not wish
> to INVITE Tim's participation, it is _Andrew_ who is blocking Tim's
> access here.
That is not an open list. A country club where you need to have an
invitiation to join is not an open club. A software program that you need
an invitation to use or modify is not open source.
Allowing invited guests does not solve the problem. It only puts it under
the rug by having a mechanism to quite people who make noise.
Personally, I'm not sure there are that many non-committers who would want
to subscribe to this list. But the whole idea of having the main "Apache
Community" being closed to non-committers is repugnant to me and is
completely counter to my definition of the Apache community. I don't care
anything about this particular case. I care about the principal.
Incidentally, the "Apache Community" includes, at minimum, everyone listed
here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html
Joshua.
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> > community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to
> > a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always
> > reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not. So that
> > list is not an option.
>
> The fact that it is the only ASF-wide list for discussion seems to be an
> argument for opening it, not closing it.
We did NOT vote to close the list. We voted to limit access to
committers AND INVITED participants. If Andrew does not wish
to INVITE Tim's participation, it is _Andrew_ who is blocking Tim's
access here.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Ben Hyde <bh...@pobox.com>.
Didn't we settle this most contentious issue some time ago with a few
megabytes of text and a long complex vote coupled with a solid turn
out? If so it's painful and cruel to reopen the issue. - ben
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Morgan Delagrange <md...@yahoo.com>.
Welcome to the minority, Joshua. :)
- Morgan
--- Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> > community@ is the only ASF wide list that is
> opt-in and not bound to
> > a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for
> example). committers@ always
> > reaches _all_ committers if they want to
> participate or not. So that
> > list is not an option.
>
> The fact that it is the only ASF-wide list for
> discussion seems to be an
> argument for opening it, not closing it.
>
> > Anyway, there are arguments for and against, a
> bunch of them are in the
> > reorg@ archives.
> >
> > In the community@ archives you can find the vote
> on whether this list
> > should be open or closed.
>
> Yah. Right. And where would I find those archives?
> One good reason for
> opening a list is it allows us to have public
> archives.
>
> Sorry for rehashing an old issue, but I just can't
> imagine a topic I would
> want to discuss on here that I wouldn't want to be
> public. Apache is an
> open organization. All discussion should be open
> unless there is a very
> specific reason otherwise. And the only reasons I
> can think of are
> security, legal, and making decisions on "trust"
> (which I always put in
> quotes). None of that should be happening here.
>
> If I were to write a set of Apache principles, "Open
> discussion and
> debate" would certainly be one of them. We aren't
> following that here.
>
> Joshua.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> community-help@apache.org
>
=====
Morgan Delagrange
http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons
http://axion.tigris.org
http://jakarta.apache.org/watchdog
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Sander Striker wrote:
> community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to
> a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always
> reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not. So that
> list is not an option.
The fact that it is the only ASF-wide list for discussion seems to be an
argument for opening it, not closing it.
> Anyway, there are arguments for and against, a bunch of them are in the
> reorg@ archives.
>
> In the community@ archives you can find the vote on whether this list
> should be open or closed.
Yah. Right. And where would I find those archives? One good reason for
opening a list is it allows us to have public archives.
Sorry for rehashing an old issue, but I just can't imagine a topic I would
want to discuss on here that I wouldn't want to be public. Apache is an
open organization. All discussion should be open unless there is a very
specific reason otherwise. And the only reasons I can think of are
security, legal, and making decisions on "trust" (which I always put in
quotes). None of that should be happening here.
If I were to write a set of Apache principles, "Open discussion and
debate" would certainly be one of them. We aren't following that here.
Joshua.
Re: Adding community@ archives was Open community (was ... secret
discussions ...)
Posted by Vadim Gritsenko <va...@verizon.net>.
Brian Behlendorf wrote:
>On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>
>>It's probably an oversight, nothing more. Drop a message to apmail@
>>(oh heck, I'll CC them in this message right now) and they should be
>>able to set it up. Also community@ should be added to the publically
>>available archives in http://www.apache.org/mail/.
>>
>>
>
>I don't know how eyebrowse is configured, but the mbox files are now at
>the URL above.
>
>
Can we invite marc.theaimsgroup.com to this list too?
Vadim
> Brian
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Public... (Was: Re: Adding community@ archives was Open
community)
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@apache.org>.
On 30/1/03 20:23, "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listName=community@apache.o
> rg
>
> Do you still need to do something to enable searching? Doesn't seem to be
> available.
It is indexed... I don't know why it didn't pick it up... That's something
that only DLR can explain...
Pier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Public... (Was: Re: Adding community@ archives was Open community)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listName=community@apache.o
rg
Do you still need to do something to enable searching? Doesn't seem to be
available.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Public... (Was: Re: Adding community@ archives was Open community)
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@apache.org>.
"Rodent of Unusual Size" <Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
> Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>>
>> Should I make community@ available also on EyeBrowse?
>> (Please, make sure to CC me as I'm not on the Community list)
>
> yes, please. and let us know the url.
As requested.
<http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listName=community@apache.
org>
Pier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Adding community@ archives was Open community (was ... secret
discussions ...)
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Pier Fumagalli wrote:
>
> Should I make community@ available also on EyeBrowse?
> (Please, make sure to CC me as I'm not on the Community list)
yes, please. and let us know the url.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Adding community@ archives was Open community (was ... secret
discussions ...)
Posted by Pier Fumagalli <pi...@apache.org>.
"Brian Behlendorf" <br...@collab.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> It's probably an oversight, nothing more. Drop a message to apmail@
>> (oh heck, I'll CC them in this message right now) and they should be
>> able to set it up. Also community@ should be added to the publically
>> available archives in http://www.apache.org/mail/.
>
> I don't know how eyebrowse is configured, but the mbox files are now at
> the URL above.
Should I make community@ available also on EyeBrowse?
(Please, make sure to CC me as I'm not on the Community list)
Pier
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: Adding community@ archives was Open community (was ... secret
discussions ...)
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> It's probably an oversight, nothing more. Drop a message to apmail@
> (oh heck, I'll CC them in this message right now) and they should be
> able to set it up. Also community@ should be added to the publically
> available archives in http://www.apache.org/mail/.
I don't know how eyebrowse is configured, but the mbox files are now at
the URL above.
Brian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
RE: Adding community@ archives was Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> We're not really trying to hide anything. What you might
> be able to attribute to malice, attribute to, umm,
> absentmindedness.
For the record, malice never occured to me as an option. I'd asked about
archives previously, without a response. So when the comment was ever so
casually made that we could just look in them, naturally that perked up my
ears, and renewed my interest in knowing where such are located.
--- Noel
Adding community@ archives was Open community (was ... secret
discussions ...)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:15 PM -0500 "Noel J. Bergman"
<no...@devtech.com> wrote:
>> In the community@ archives you can find the vote on whether this
>> list should be open or closed.
>
> WHAT archives? As I have commented on before, eyebrowse has none
> for community@
> (http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=108). Are
> they elsewhere? If so, where?
It's probably an oversight, nothing more. Drop a message to apmail@
(oh heck, I'll CC them in this message right now) and they should be
able to set it up. Also community@ should be added to the publically
available archives in http://www.apache.org/mail/.
I don't have apmail access and I'm not at all clear that Eyebrowse is
working right now since nagoya isn't handling email for jakarta
anymore. So, it may take a few days for the dust to clear.
But, the intention was clearly for this list to be publically
archived. We're not really trying to hide anything. What you might
be able to attribute to malice, attribute to, umm, absentmindedness.
=) -- justin
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> In the community@ archives you can find the vote on whether this list
> should be open or closed.
WHAT archives? As I have commented on before, eyebrowse has none for
community@ (http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?listId=108).
Are they elsewhere? If so, where?
--- Noel
RE: Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Joshua Slive [mailto:joshua@slive.ca]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:37 PM
> Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
> understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
> plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@,
> members@, pmc@, committers@ for announcements, etc). It is hard for me to
> think of any issue that we would want to discuss on community that would
> need to be private only to committers.
>
> Joshua.
community@ is the only ASF wide list that is opt-in and not bound to
a certain topic (like infrastructure@ for example). committers@ always
reaches _all_ committers if they want to participate or not. So that
list is not an option.
Anyway, there are arguments for and against, a bunch of them are in the
reorg@ archives.
In the community@ archives you can find the vote on whether this list
should be open or closed.
HTH,
Sander
Open community (was ... secret discussions ...)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
Sorry if this has been discussed before (I just subscribed), but I don't
understand why community@apache.org would be a closed list. We have
plenty of other places in the ASF to discuss private issues (board@,
members@, pmc@, committers@ for announcements, etc). It is hard for me to
think of any issue that we would want to discuss on community that would
need to be private only to committers.
Joshua.
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret
discussions about wiki
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
[This actually belongs to the "Open Community" thread on community@... Oh
well.]
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here;
> and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in
> discussions within a community; without being yet part of that community.
>
> Just because our software is free (as in free beer) does not mean that the
> process behind it needs to be free (as in speech) and open to all.
I'm not sure where to start on this.
1. How do you define our "community"? As I said, I define it to include
everyone here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/roles.html. It certainly
extends beyond those with commit priveleges.
2. Apache software is free as is speach and free as in beer. I'm not
sure what your last paragraph is trying to say in that regard.
3. You are correct, that does not necessarily imply an open development
process. But an open development process has always been an important
part of the Apache culture for as long as I've been here. It is how we
attract new participants; it is how we stay connected to users; it is part
of the mission of keeping the Internet open.
4. Nobody is saying hold an Internet-wide vote for the board of directors.
Another important part of Apache culture is the meritocracy. But that
does not conflict with openness, and, in fact, I think the two are very
complementary.
And what does the open process hurt? The only argument that I've seen so
far is signal-noise ratio. This is always a problem on any mailing list,
and we've managed it very successfully on new-httpd/dev@httpd by having a
tightly focused scope and enforcing it. (Yes, there have been some rare
exceptions, which I will not name; but overall the list is very open and
works very well.) I don't see why this would be any more difficult on
community@.
Joshua.
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secretdiscussions about wiki
Posted by David Reid <dr...@jetnet.co.uk>.
> > > ( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you are the
Chairman of
> > > the Board, and Andrew, you've been a proponent of Wiki. Since I only
know
> > > about a discussion secondhand, I can only imagine what is being
discussed,
> > > here's my take. Also, Mr. Stein, just in case you are fuming mad at
me,
> > > don't let my comments color your view of Mr. Oliver - I've never met
him. )
> >
> > As I already said, while I don't know what is happening on members@
> > either, why don't we give Tim access to community@?
>
> +1
>
> Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here;
> and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in
> discussions within a community; without being yet part of that community.
>
> Just because our software is free (as in free beer) does not mean that the
> process behind it needs to be free (as in speech) and open to all. Though
> I admit that we like to think of ourselves as a public institution; we are
> not; nor do we have the social structure to even come close to being one.
> and having worked as a civil servant - I am not sure I'd even want this
> community to be one; as it is not the right environment to foster this
> type of work or code.
Damn - I actually agree with you Dirk! :)
david
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret
discussions about wiki
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
> >
> > ( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you are the Chairman of
> > the Board, and Andrew, you've been a proponent of Wiki. Since I only know
> > about a discussion secondhand, I can only imagine what is being discussed,
> > here's my take. Also, Mr. Stein, just in case you are fuming mad at me,
> > don't let my comments color your view of Mr. Oliver - I've never met him. )
>
> As I already said, while I don't know what is happening on members@
> either, why don't we give Tim access to community@?
+1
Though - and on a different topic - there is one thing nagging me here;
and that is this concept that the 'public' has a 'right' to be involved in
discussions within a community; without being yet part of that community.
Just because our software is free (as in free beer) does not mean that the
process behind it needs to be free (as in speech) and open to all. Though
I admit that we like to think of ourselves as a public institution; we are
not; nor do we have the social structure to even come close to being one.
and having worked as a civil servant - I am not sure I'd even want this
community to be one; as it is not the right environment to foster this
type of work or code.
Dw
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
acoliver@apache.org wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>
> To: <gs...@apache.org>; <ac...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 2:12 PM
> Subject: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
> about wiki
>
>
> ( Note: I'm only writing you two only because Greg, you are the Chairman of
> the Board, and Andrew, you've been a proponent of Wiki. Since I only know
> about a discussion secondhand, I can only imagine what is being discussed,
> here's my take. Also, Mr. Stein, just in case you are fuming mad at me,
> don't let my comments color your view of Mr. Oliver - I've never met him. )
As I already said, while I don't know what is happening on members@
either, why don't we give Tim access to community@?
(aco, please fw to members?)
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
Posted by Erik Abele <er...@apache.org>.
O'brien, Tim wrote:
> I have no idea of what the discussion is at community@, I'm not allowed to
> subscribe to that list.
I just manually moderated Tim's mails through to communtiy@ and if nobody objects I will subscribe him too. I think we had enough positive feedback for this...
cheers,
Erik
> Again, I need to stress that I have no hostility towards anyone here. This
> is a good discussion, I'm sorry if people felt that I was being over
> dramatic. I'm responding, but I don't think that my email will make it
> through to the community list. I tried to subscribe this morning, but I
> don't think I'm allowed.
RE: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions about wiki
Posted by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>.
I have no idea of what the discussion is at community@, I'm not allowed to
subscribe to that list.
Again, I need to stress that I have no hostility towards anyone here. This
is a good discussion, I'm sorry if people felt that I was being over
dramatic. I'm responding, but I don't think that my email will make it
through to the community list. I tried to subscribe this morning, but I
don't think I'm allowed.
"J. Pietschmann" writes:
> 1. Collaborate effort to write and improve documentation, tutorials,
> examples etc. There should be someone feeling responsible for
> housekeeping, in particular static, stable bits should be moved
> out of the wiki and merged into the regular website from time to
> time, because a) reliable references need static content and b) wikis
> *will* attract abusers sooner or later.
ApacheWiki has already generated new content specifically in the area of FAQ
and informal documentation - this is what it is best for.
I hope no one considers me an abuser, if so, I apologize. As for abusers, I
had concerns initially about how Wiki would fit into the overall ASF
meritocracy. I actually was the only one to raise questions about
moderation and legality - Andrew responded to these by pointing by at Ward
Cunningham and Wikipedia. I agree that there is the chance for abusers, but
I also think that Wiki is proof of a somewhat remarkable level of self
regulation. I propose that ApacheWiki follow Wikipedia's policy of
neutrality.
> Note that quite
> a few of the pro/con discussion pages in the Apache Wiki are
> already somewhat messy, too messy for my taste and for the
> short time they are in existence.
Agreed, pro/con discussions can get very messy. WhyUseSubversion and
WhyNotUseSubversion were created with a very strict debating format. Those
pages were created in response to a discussion on infrastructure@ that was
generating a large amount of traffic. I believe that there is a point where
very long mail threads can be effectively supported by an informal Wiki
debate - but Wiki is no substitute.
Now those pages are definitely not as full and reasoned as the email thread,
but the page will evolve, and I'll bet you anything that eventually somebody
out there will create a page with some instructions about how to access ASF
Subversion instance......
> This is likely to get worse, as discussing on a whiteboard requires a lot
of
> discipline; there is always an urge to post counter arguments
> right in place, and to "correct" other people's arguments by
> editing, which in turn might be taken personally.
You assume that with more openness, the Wiki will tend toward chaos. I
don't see that happening, I think that people have a learning curve with
Wiki, and that people will make mistakes.
--------
Tim O'Brien
>
> There is still the problem that open discussion forums are
> occasionally of real value. A web based forum (like phpBB,
> for illustration) could serve this purpose:
> - no subscription, no push, no overflowing mailboxes, look at it when
> you have time
> - easy to moderate, if necessary
> - easy public access, if necessary
> - anonymous posts are possible, if necessary, without much increased
> risk of spamming
> Depending on the software, comfortable search, mail list
> gateways and other goodies are available.
>
>
> J.Pietschmann
>
>
Re: Fw: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
Posted by "J.Pietschmann" <j3...@yahoo.de>.
acoliver@apache.org wrote:
> I somewhat agree
> that Wiki is not always the best place to discuss.
I don't think a Wiki is *ever* the best place to *discuss* something.
I see the following major purposes
1. Collaborate effort to write and improve documentation, tutorials,
examples etc. There should be someone feeling responsible for
housekeeping, in particular static, stable bits should be moved
out of the wiki and merged into the regular website from time to
time, because a) reliable references need static content and b) wikis
*will* attract abusers sooner or later.
2. Serve as a whiteboard accompanying a process, like a design process,
usually in connection with a discussion on a mailing list. The
whiteboard should be used for writing down text in a somewhat concise
manner and should not take the form of the arguments and
counterarguments of a discussion. Again, the whiteboard should be
wiped and the valuable bits moved elsewhere after the process
achieved its goal.
I agree that a wiki can be the *second best* place for certain
discussions, for example if there is no appropriate mailing list
reaching all interested parties.
Note that quite a few of the pro/con discussion pages in the Apache Wiki
are already somewhat messy, too messy for my taste and for the short
time they are in existence. This is likely to get worse, as discussing
on a whiteboard requires a lot of discipline; there is always an urge
to post counter arguments right in place, and to "correct" other
people's arguments by editing, which in turn might be taken personally.
There is still the problem that open discussion forums are occasionally
of real value. A web based forum (like phpBB, for illustration) could
serve this purpose:
- no subscription, no push, no overflowing mailboxes, look at it when
you have time
- easy to moderate, if necessary
- easy public access, if necessary
- anonymous posts are possible, if necessary, without much increased
risk of spamming
Depending on the software, comfortable search, mail list gateways and
other goodies are available.
J.Pietschmann
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> writes:
> On 28 Jan 2003, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> writes:
> >
> > > So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ? Feel free
> > > to drop Tim of the Cc to preserve dignity/privacy.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind if you also forget to unsubscribe him after this
> > discussion ends.
>
> Nope; I do not think that that was the pattern agreed to for this list
> (though this list can change the rules any time they can get consensus
> over it) - once invited in, is invited in as part of the community@.
Even better!
--
Joe Schaefer
RE: You can at.....
Posted by Martin van den Bemt <ma...@mvdb.net>.
+1
Get the guy in :)
Mvgr,
Martin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [mailto:dirkx@webweaving.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 01:30
> To: community@apache.org
> Cc: O'brien, Tim
> Subject: Re: You can at.....
>
>
>
>
> On 28 Jan 2003, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>
> > Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> writes:
> >
> > > So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here
> ? Feel free
> > > to drop Tim of the Cc to preserve dignity/privacy.
> >
> > I wouldn't mind if you also forget to unsubscribe him after this
> > discussion ends.
>
> Nope; I do not think that that was the pattern agreed to for this list
> (though this list can change the rules any time they can get consensus
> over it) - once invited in, is invited in as part of the community@.
>
> Dw
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
>
>
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On 28 Jan 2003, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> writes:
>
> > So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ? Feel free
> > to drop Tim of the Cc to preserve dignity/privacy.
>
> I wouldn't mind if you also forget to unsubscribe him after this
> discussion ends.
Nope; I do not think that that was the pattern agreed to for this list
(though this list can change the rules any time they can get consensus
over it) - once invited in, is invited in as part of the community@.
Dw
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org> writes:
> So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ? Feel free
> to drop Tim of the Cc to preserve dignity/privacy.
I wouldn't mind if you also forget to unsubscribe him after this
discussion ends.
--
Joe Schaefer
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Joe Schaefer <jo...@sunstarsys.com>.
Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org> writes:
> Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
>
> > So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ?
>
> As the factual proposer: sure!
Noone objects to Tim's invitation. I personally would like to
ensure that since he's here now, he can also expect to stay here
as long as he likes. I'm glad to relearn that our prior vote
already established that.
--
Joe Schaefer
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
>
>
>>Related to that: _who_ is able to request access for invited parties?
>
>
> AFAIK Anyone on this list. Or at least that was the consensus after
> 150Mbyte or more of dicussion on open and closedness :-)
I just saw Stefano's vote round up: every committer. Which means Tim
won't be able to propose his own friends.
Anyway, sorry for the noise.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Steven Noels wrote:
> Related to that: _who_ is able to request access for invited parties?
AFAIK Anyone on this list. Or at least that was the consensus after
150Mbyte or more of dicussion on open and closedness :-)
Dw.
Re: You can at.....
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote:
> So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ?
As the factual proposer: sure!
Related to that: _who_ is able to request access for invited parties? I
could as well have come up with a vote, but was reluctant to do so since
I felt there was some discussion about the topic on members@ (I might be
wrong about that, of course).
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
RE: You can at.....
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> No trouble. Meanwhile I've asked Andrew to get you subscribed here - but
> his interest are not with this list.
I don't even think that Andrew subscribes here.
> So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ? Feel free
> to drop Tim of the Cc to preserve dignity/privacy.
Fine with me (+1 if it matters). I was just replying to him that if he
wants on, he should just ask in order to start whatever process exists.
--- Noel
RE: You can at.....
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
No trouble. Meanwhile I've asked Andrew to get you subscribed here - but
his interest are not with this list.
So I'll do the deed - any objections to inviting Tim in here ? Feel free
to drop Tim of the Cc to preserve dignity/privacy.
Dw
RE: You can at.....
Posted by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>.
Dirk, I apologize for using you as an example, and implying that you were
using your 'hat'. You were not.
RE: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions
about wiki
Posted by Dirk-Willem van Gulik <di...@webweaving.org>.
On Tue, 28 Jan 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > a friend of the court brief for the "Board vs. Wiki".
>
> Board vs. Wiki? That's somewhat amusing in its timing, considering that the
> Chairman of the Board, as a private individual not in an official capacity,
Tim: Bear in mind that in the ASF we almost never have our board/chair or
committer hats on - but virtually always talk as normal peer to peer
beings.
Only seldom wil someone with his 'hat' make a statement; and in that case
you will usually see that that then comes from (in my case)
'dirkx@apache.org' and often has an pgp signature. Things are mostly about
consensus; and rarely, if ever, do we need more.
The number of messages like that are typically less than 2 a month for me.
(And most go to license or copy right violators anyway). (And - yes I know
that there _ARE_ people who use their ASF address for normal day to day
work - and I personally frown upon that. ;-) ;-).
But, and slightly with less of a smiley, is that the fact that your
message thus comes across as a bit crass - and implies actions by
officials; which in most cases are confused with their personal stances.
Dw, just a person.
RE: You can at least..... ( subject too long )
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
Tim,
I'd perceived some hostility in the latter part of your message, but that's
cleared up. :-)
> I was just responding to a Wiki page posted this morning that mentioned
that
> discussions were occuring on board@ and members@, and some were talking
> about shutting down the Wiki.
Not being on either of those, that comes as news to me. I had not seen
Andrew's latest comment on
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?WikiHaters. Even so, I would
inquire first. The phrasing on that page suggests to me that it might be
rather overstating any cause for concern. "[There] is even talk of shutting
the wiki down" sounds more like someone describing a worst case possibility
than a consensus to me. What does it sound like to you?
> > Board vs. Wiki? That's somewhat amusing in its timing,
> > considering that the Chairman of the Board.....
> I apologize for choosing [Board vs. Wiki] specifically. Because
> community@ is a closed list, I was not aware of the discussion,
> and was basing my comments from what I had read on Wiki.
There is (another, apparently) round of debate regarding whether or not to
open community@, but for now it is by invitation. If you want to be on it
just say so, and whatever "invitation process" exists can be initiated.
> > I am not aware of the ASF Board, as an
> > official body, having said word one about the Wiki. Nor do I
> > detect anything regarding the Wiki in their meeting minutes.
> I can't say, the most recent board minutes that I can see are from
November
> 2002. I'll trust you though, I take it you've seen the Board meeting
> minutes from December and January.
I haven't seen the official notes from either, just the summary from
January. The official minutes can be extensively delayed, since they need
to be written up and then approved at a meeting. So the earliest that
minutes would show up would be after they are approved at the following
meeting, as I understand it.
--- Noel
RE: You can at least..... ( subject too long )
Posted by "O'brien, Tim" <to...@transolutions.net>.
Noel,
> Beyond that, I'm sensing hostility that doesn't make any sense.
No hostility, and I hope you don't take offense at anything I've written.
Again, I didn't mean to start a fight.
I was just responding to a Wiki page posted this morning that mentioned that
discussions were occuring on board@ and members@, and some were talking
about shutting down the Wiki.
> Board vs. Wiki? That's somewhat amusing in its timing,
> considering that the Chairman of the Board.....
Makes sense, I apologize for choosing those words specifically. Because
community@ is a closed list, I was not aware of the discussion, and was
basing my comments from what I had read on Wiki.
Again, I regret having used the term "Board vs. Wiki".
> I am not aware of the ASF Board, as an
> official body, having said word one about the Wiki. Nor do I
> detect anything regarding the Wiki in their meeting minutes.
I can't say, the most recent board minutes that I can see are from November
2002. I'll trust you though, I take it you've seen the Board meeting
minutes from December and January.
--------
Tim O'Brien
RE: You can at least forward my comments to these secret discussions about wiki
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> a friend of the court brief for the "Board vs. Wiki".
Board vs. Wiki? That's somewhat amusing in its timing, considering that the
Chairman of the Board, as a private individual not in an official capacity,
(a) is the author of SubWiki, (b) posted a message to community@ in support
for Wiki use just minutes ago, (c) has expressed his willingness to address
concerns regarding issues integrating Wiki technology into a managed
environment.
Words create images. Hyperbole can be useful at times, but "Board vs. Wiki"
paints a grossly distorted image that is damaging to any constructive
discussion of the subject. I have had discussion about the Wiki with
multiple members of the Board. Each of them expressed support for the Wiki,
although with some reservations regarding best use, oversight, or other
personal views. And those are just that: their personal views. I am not
aware of the ASF Board, as an official body, having said word one about the
Wiki. Nor do I detect anything regarding the Wiki in their meeting minutes.
Beyond that, I'm sensing hostility that doesn't make any sense.
--- Noel