You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ant.apache.org by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net> on 2001/01/13 02:21:21 UTC
FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
------ Forwarded Message
From: James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>
Reply-To: pmc@jakarta.apache.org
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:16:24 -0800
To: <an...@jakarta.apache.org>
Cc: <pm...@jakarta.apache.org>, <ge...@jakarta.apache.org>,
<me...@apache.org>
Subject: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
As promised, here's the information for the Jakarta PMC meeting.
WHEN:
Tuesday Jan 16th 1:00PM PDT
I anticipate that this meeting could span the entire afternoon. Please
plan accordingly.
WHERE:
CollabNet
8000 Marina Boulevard Suite 600
Brisbane, CA 94005-1865
For more info including directions see:
http://www.collab.net/about/contact.html
WHO:
This is a meeting for the Jakarta PMC members and the PMC members
will be primary participants in this meeting. However, it will
be an open door meeting. Anybody who is a committer to any project
under the Jakarta umbrella is welcome to attend and observe. As well
anybody interested in the future of the Jakarta project is welcome.
We have had requests for people to observe the proceedings for
educational purposes -- these folks as well are welcome.
The PMC Chairman reserves the right to limit participation by
any observer if circumstances warrant.
DIAL-IN INFORMATION:
Number: 954-797-1657
Participant Code: 507609
Note, we do have a maximum number of 20 concurrent connections available
on the conference calling system. Please be aware of this. The purpose
of the dial in number is to allow committers who can not otherwise
attend this meeting to observe to have visibility into the meeting. If
you are in the Bay Area, please attend the meeting in person rather than
calling in so that we can maximize lines for people that absolutely
can not be present in person.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The ASF By-Laws states the following about PMC's:
"Section 6.3. Project Management Committees. In addition to the officers
of the corporation, the Board of Directors may, by resolution, establish
one or more Project Management Committees consisting of at least one
officer of the corporation, who shall be designated chairman of such
committee, and may include one or more other members of the corporation.
Unless elected or appointed as an officer in accordance with Sections
6.1 and 6.4 of these Bylaws, a member of a Project Management Committee
shall not be deemed an officer of the corporation.
Each Project Management Committee shall be responsible for the active
management of one or more projects identified by resolution of the Board
of Directors which may include, without limitation, the creation or
maintenance of "open-source" software for distribution to the public at
no charge. Subject to the direction of the Board of Directors, the
chairman of each Project Management Committee shall be primarily
responsible for project(s) managed by such committee, and he or she
shall establish rules and procedures for the day to day management of
project(s) for which the committee is responsible.
The Board of Directors of the corporation may, by resolution, terminate
a Project Management Committee at any time. "
This section of the ASF By-Laws is what defines what the PMCs are and
how they can act.
AGENDA:
*) Definition of the scope of the Jakarta Project. This is required
by the Chairman of the ASF and the ASF Board. At the current time
the Chairman feels that many of the projects in the Jakarta and
XML projects are out of scope. Either we define a new scope
and propose it to the board, or we propose that certain subprojects
be moved to their own, different projects with their own scope.
The result of this action item will be presented to the Board for
its consideration.
As part of this bullet point, I will be moving that we propose
to the board the creation of a separate, top level project for Ant.
*) Formalization of a subproject responsibility hierarchy. The PMC, and
its chairman, are responsible for the day to day operations of the
subprojects contained by the Jakarta Project. Currently the Jakarta
project has too many codebases for the PMC and Chairman to oversee
directly. As a solution, the PMC will be appointing responsible
parties for each of the subprojects who will be responsible for the
day to day operations of that subproject. These appointees will be
responsible to the PMC chairman.
*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision
about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process
for managing the factors that created the current situation will
be moving forward. For reference you may want to read:
http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this
debate be present at this meeting to discuss.
*) Other agenda items that may be raised by PMC members during the
meeting.
*) Election of a PMC Chairman for the next 12 months.
PRE-MEETING FESTIVITIES:
Before the meeting, Jon Stevens and I welcome you to come to
CollabNet and discuss ideas for a CJAN implementation for
managing Java JAR libraries. I'm sure that we'd also like to
talk about Sam's tinderbox ideas as these ideas are related.
Details on this to follow.
James Duncan Davidson
Vice President, Jakarta Project Chair
Apache Software Foundation
------ End of Forwarded Message
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by "Rosen, Alex" <ar...@silverstream.com>.
> I like the idea of tools.apache.org (well okay a sexier name
> would be better).
sexytools.apache.org?
Sorry, just trying to add a little humor to an otherwise depressing day on
ant-dev.
--Alex
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 04:00 14/1/01 -0800, James Duncan Davidson wrote:
>The Jakarta Project encompasses several things. It was created to serve as a
>home for Tomcat and a place for many of the java.apache.org projects to
>land. Ant isn't really part of the raison d'etre of Jakarta, and never was.
>Now that it's received some degree of success, it's time for it to breathe
>on its own and not under the Jakarta project where it can be forgotten.
>
>There's a couple of alternatives to this:
>
> 1) Ant could become a top level Apache project -- on par with
> Jakarta, httpd, apr, xml, and others. Or, somewhat related
> could form the seed for a new project that dealt with
> software dev tools (like the tinderbox stuff that Sam has
> worked on).
I like the idea of tools.apache.org (well okay a sexier name would be better).
>> What exactly is encompassed by "day to day operations"? Does it include
>> technical decisions and directions? As each Jakarta project has a group of
>> committers, for whom there is already a decision making framework, could
>> not this group form the leaf of the "responsibility hierarchy" If this is
>> not the case, then what is the role of the committers in decision making?
>
>Day to day operations is pretty much defined as just that. Read the ASF by
>laws for an idea. Process, procedure, direction, goals, etc.
>
>When all of the committers are in agreement, it's easy to say that there
>isn't a need for a "leader". However, when you have things like the Tomcat
>3.x --> 4.x happenstances where not everybody is willing to go with the
>decisions that have been made, then you really need a person with whom the
>"buck stops".
How much say does this person have. If they disagree with decision X can
they claim that the group never reached a consensus and then overide them.
Leaders are only accepted if they earn the position and continue earning
the position. Trying to institute forced leaders (ie non-benevolent
dictators) is one sure way of killing a project.
You keep comparing yourself to famous benevolent dictators but you are not
even vaguely comparable to them - You abandoned the project and then came
back. When you came back you did some atrocious things, insulted a whole
bunch of people and generally lost the respect of the group. The successful
benevolent dictators are inclusive and want input generally while you had a
"vision" and anything outside was "wrong". Your continued developement of
Ant spec outside ant-dev with your own copyrights splattered across them
makes me even more reluctent to trust that you have the best intentions of
Ant at stake.
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 1:14 PM, "James Cook" <ji...@iname.com> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
>> Note: It wouldn't be called "Ant" then as the license does not
>> allow you to use the name.
>
> But it would be, if the Apache Group released the rights to the name.
As a member of the ASF and a member of the Jakarta PMC and an active
developer on this project, I would vote -1 to this, so I don't see it
happening any time soon.
> I suppose that you are just offering that little tidbit for informations
> sake.
Yep. Just making sure that people understand that I'm very pro-forking. If
you think you have a better way of doing things and you don't think you can
accomplish them under the project that you are working within, I highly
suggest that you fork. Keep reading below...
> I was suggesting that a discussion should take place to move *Ant* out
> of Apache. This would be in the spirit of Duncan's "it's time for it to
> breathe on its own and not under the Jakarta project where it can be
> forgotten."
I'm all for that if that is what you think is the best thing for Ant within
the restrictions of the current environment.
> I have no desire to fork Ant. I want to present the committers of Ant 2.0
> with some new and fresh ideas with a design that is a little bit more
> radical than the one they are currently considering.
Great! Keep blowing your horn as loudly as you can. I really encourage that
as well. :-) Look at how much noise I tend to make. :-) I'm sure that you
can do it better than I can though as I tend to not be very politically
correct. :-)
A bit of history:
When I started working with Apache JServ (0.9.3 circa ~1997), I found it to
have many problems and bugs and I needed something that worked better. So, I
started submitting patches and bug reports, however, not only was the source
code not in a public CVS, but the mailing list it was on had a 2+ hour
response time. Also, at the time the ASF didn't even really have a
foundation for supporting multiple top level projects other than the HTTPd
project. Even worse was the fact that the primary developer of Apache JServ
was about to start college and completely dropped the project! You guys
think you have it so bad...but I digress...:-)
So, what did I do? I forked the project. I took the source code and checked
it into CVS on my own server (which is what has become working-dogs.com). I
took the mailing lists and hosted them myself! Why did I need to do this?
Because at the time, I couldn't even get Brian to respond to my emails! I
wanted the software to be under the ASF, but I couldn't do it. The
infrastructure didn't exist and I couldn't get anyone to listen to me! :-)
Sound familiar?
Eventually, Brian and others started to take notice that there was this Java
freak running around with ASF source code and mailing lists. Brian saw that
I had a lot of motivation to help out and make things better. Eventually, I
was voted in to the ASF as one of the first non-httpd and Java related
members. I was given access to the things that I needed to be given access
and things started improving. Brian and I even met in person to have dinner
a few times and talk about things. He saw that I wanted to be part of the
group and that I wanted to do the same cool stuff he was doing, but in the
Java context.
All of this discussion eventually led me to even quit the very successful
company that I co-founded to go work with Brian to share the dream. I
haven't regretted that at all.
Anyway, to make a long story short, the whole point of what I'm trying to
say is that you need to stand up for yourself and prove that you have what
it takes to become a member of the ASF if you want to be given the right to
be part of the ASF. Just being a committer on a project isn't enough. You
have to also have the fire in your belly (or a really bad itch to scratch)
to set things straight and do things the way that you think is right (or at
least help convince others to believe in your goals and support you).
I also think that is a lot of the reasons why the ASF tends to be looked on
by outsiders as being clique'ish. It is because all of the people who have
risen up to become members of the ASF are also the same people with that
burning desire to make great software and give it away so that others can
enjoy it. We all have a lot in common. Should we thus be faulted for that? I
don't think so.
I hope this email encourages you to do the following:
#1. Develop the best software you can.
#2. Work to join the ASF as a member. Make a name for yourself.
#3. Stand up for what you believe it. Follow your goals.
thanks,
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by James Cook <ji...@iname.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Note: It wouldn't be called "Ant" then as the license does not
> allow you to use the name.
But it would be, if the Apache Group released the rights to the name.
> Also, at *any* point, it is fully your right to fork the code
> that currently composes Ant over to sourceforge.
I suppose that you are just offering that little tidbit for informations
sake. I was suggesting that a discussion should take place to move *Ant* out
of Apache. This would be in the spirit of Duncan's "it's time for it to
breathe on its own and not under the Jakarta project where it can be
forgotten."
> Make Ant whatever you want it to be.
I have no desire to fork Ant. I want to present the committers of Ant 2.0
with some new and fresh ideas with a design that is a little bit more
radical than the one they are currently considering.
jim
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 9:55 AM, "James Cook" <ji...@iname.com> wrote:
> If the dicussion leads to alternative hosting/control for Ant, I would hope
> that Sourceforge would be considered in an effort to extricate the PMC from
> any control over Ant. Members of the PMC would, of course, be able to earn a
> position of commiter.
>
> Make Ant a meritocracy.
>
> jim
Note: It wouldn't be called "Ant" then as the license does not allow you to
use the name.
Also, at *any* point, it is fully your right to fork the code that currently
composes Ant over to sourceforge.
Make Ant whatever you want it to be.
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by James Cook <ji...@iname.com>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:bodewig@apache.org]
> >> As part of this bullet point, I will be moving that we propose
> >> to the board the creation of a separate, top level project for
> >> Ant.
>
> Maybe embed Ant with other projects like Alexandria and JMeter to a
> development tools project?
If the dicussion leads to alternative hosting/control for Ant, I would hope
that Sourceforge would be considered in an effort to extricate the PMC from
any control over Ant. Members of the PMC would, of course, be able to earn a
position of commiter.
Make Ant a meritocracy.
jim
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
Conor MacNeill <co...@cognet.com.au> wrote:
> As I am both geographically challenged and timezone challenged, I
> will not be able to provide any real-time input for this meeting. In
> any case, the cost of doing so would not be something I would
> entertain.
Same here (all points).
>> As part of this bullet point, I will be moving that we propose
>> to the board the creation of a separate, top level project for
>> Ant.
Maybe embed Ant with other projects like Alexandria and JMeter to a
development tools project?
Besides I don't think there'd be too many changes the Ant community
would perceive when Ant gets moved out of Jakarta. A new URL, another
PMC but not much more.
>> *) Formalization of a subproject responsibility hierarchy. The
>> PMC, and its chairman, are responsible for the day to day
>> operations of the subprojects contained by the Jakarta Project.
>
> What exactly is encompassed by "day to day operations"? Does it
> include technical decisions and directions?
Don't think so. This is the responsibility of the active developers of
a project according to ASF rules.
Stefan
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>.
On 1/14/01 6:04 AM, "Conor MacNeill" <co...@cognet.com.au> wrote:
> I thought ant was already a top-level project! I can only assume that this
> means moving ant out of Jakarta. Is that right? What is special about ant?
The Jakarta Project encompasses several things. It was created to serve as a
home for Tomcat and a place for many of the java.apache.org projects to
land. Ant isn't really part of the raison d'etre of Jakarta, and never was.
Now that it's received some degree of success, it's time for it to breathe
on its own and not under the Jakarta project where it can be forgotten.
There's a couple of alternatives to this:
1) Ant could become a top level Apache project -- on par with
Jakarta, httpd, apr, xml, and others. Or, somewhat related
could form the seed for a new project that dealt with
software dev tools (like the tinderbox stuff that Sam has
worked on).
2) Ant could become a project of some other organization that
is working on software development tools. The org that
springs to mind is Tigris.org.
> What are the implications of this change? In other words, if ant is a
> separate top-level project, how will it operate differently from the way it
> works (or doesn't work) today.
It won't be buried under a project that is focused mainly on
Servlets/JSPs/Web things.
>> *) Formalization of a subproject responsibility hierarchy. The PMC, and
>> its chairman, are responsible for the day to day operations of the
>> subprojects contained by the Jakarta Project.
>
> What exactly is encompassed by "day to day operations"? Does it include
> technical decisions and directions? As each Jakarta project has a group of
> committers, for whom there is already a decision making framework, could
> not this group form the leaf of the "responsibility hierarchy" If this is
> not the case, then what is the role of the committers in decision making?
Day to day operations is pretty much defined as just that. Read the ASF by
laws for an idea. Process, procedure, direction, goals, etc.
When all of the committers are in agreement, it's easy to say that there
isn't a need for a "leader". However, when you have things like the Tomcat
3.x --> 4.x happenstances where not everybody is willing to go with the
decisions that have been made, then you really need a person with whom the
"buck stops".
> I'm not sure what "responsible to the PMC chairman" involves?
That means that the person would be in charge subject to the PMC chairman's
oversight. Just as the PMC chairman is responsible for the Jakarta Project
subject to the ASF boards oversight.
> I guess there is no need to really discuss any or all these points on the
> ant-dev list. I'm just raising the questions that came into my mind, since
> I can't be there. Will there be any minutes provided afterwards?
Some lucky person will take minutes. I will be publishing those along with
the actions and action items from the meeting within a few days of the
meeting.
.duncan
--
James Duncan Davidson duncan@x180.net
!try; do()
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Conor MacNeill <co...@cognet.com.au>.
As I am both geographically challenged and timezone challenged, I will not
be able to provide any real-time input for this meeting. In any case, the
cost of doing so would not be something I would entertain. Therefore I
would just like to ask a few questions to better understand what is being
proposed and how it may affect Ant.
> As part of this bullet point, I will be moving that we propose
> to the board the creation of a separate, top level project for Ant.
>
I thought ant was already a top-level project! I can only assume that this
means moving ant out of Jakarta. Is that right? What is special about ant?
What are the implications of this change? In other words, if ant is a
separate top-level project, how will it operate differently from the way it
works (or doesn't work) today.
> *) Formalization of a subproject responsibility hierarchy. The PMC, and
> its chairman, are responsible for the day to day operations of the
> subprojects contained by the Jakarta Project.
What exactly is encompassed by "day to day operations"? Does it include
technical decisions and directions? As each Jakarta project has a group of
committers, for whom there is already a decision making framework, could
not this group form the leaf of the "responsibility hierarchy" If this is
not the case, then what is the role of the committers in decision making?
> Currently the Jakarta
> project has too many codebases for the PMC and Chairman to oversee
> directly. As a solution, the PMC will be appointing responsible
> parties for each of the subprojects who will be responsible for the
> day to day operations of that subproject. These appointees will be
> responsible to the PMC chairman.
I'm not sure what "responsible to the PMC chairman" involves?
I guess there is no need to really discuss any or all these points on the
ant-dev list. I'm just raising the questions that came into my mind, since
I can't be there. Will there be any minutes provided afterwards?
Thanks
Conor
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Costin,
It would be really good if you could reconsider what you said and attend/call
into the meeting. As a principal developer of the 3.x tree your viewpoint,
input and experience should feed into the decision making process.
The PMC (not withstanding any particular member's behaviour) has been no
paragon of project management w.r.t the Jakarta project. Here's an
opportunity for you to think and bring up what could be changed w.r.t the PMC
and the rest of it all.
Please don't let someone's behaviour affect your attitude about this project.
Remember that it takes all kinds. So just dismiss it as a minor PITA and try
to focus on things that are more important (to you).
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> >*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision
> > about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process
> > for managing the factors that created the current situation will
> > be moving forward. For reference you may want to read:
> >
> > http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
> >
> > The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this
> > debate be present at this meeting to discuss.
>
> Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the
> PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand
> why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general.
>
> If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had
> enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the
> debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about
> the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project
> commiters ).
>
> IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it
> seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting.
>
> ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat -
> I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back )
>
> Costin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Anil Vijendran <An...@eng.sun.com>.
Costin,
It would be really good if you could reconsider what you said and attend/call
into the meeting. As a principal developer of the 3.x tree your viewpoint,
input and experience should feed into the decision making process.
The PMC (not withstanding any particular member's behaviour) has been no
paragon of project management w.r.t the Jakarta project. Here's an
opportunity for you to think and bring up what could be changed w.r.t the PMC
and the rest of it all.
Please don't let someone's behaviour affect your attitude about this project.
Remember that it takes all kinds. So just dismiss it as a minor PITA and try
to focus on things that are more important (to you).
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> >*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision
> > about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process
> > for managing the factors that created the current situation will
> > be moving forward. For reference you may want to read:
> >
> > http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
> >
> > The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this
> > debate be present at this meeting to discuss.
>
> Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the
> PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand
> why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general.
>
> If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had
> enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the
> debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about
> the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project
> commiters ).
>
> IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it
> seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting.
>
> ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat -
> I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back )
>
> Costin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Peace, Anil +<:-)
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/14/01 6:42 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> At 05:48 14/1/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>>> I know it's out of context but this neatly summarizes it doesn't it ;) What
>>> you may ask - well let me elaborate. When I first started working with
>>> Apache peeps it was great - I never heard any complaints or had any issues.
>>> It was Stefano who introduced of sorts to it all so if I wanted something I
>>> would bug him and it would happen ;)
>>>
>>> Then I started hearing grumblings from a few people. Usually they involved
>>> one of these points
>>
>> In other words, it is much easier to be critical of the people who are in
>> public eye.
>
> not sure what you mean by this.
What I mean is that I think that the ASF members as well as the PMC members
are attempting to do the best job that we can possibly do (remember, we are
VOLUNTEERS). Sure, we make mistakes, however getting all pissed off at us
because we do make mistakes is really absurd in my opinion and I think that
it is a lot easier to be critical than it is to step up and help fix the
problems.
>> Projects which already have a community built up around it and a member is
>> willing to sponsor it and the developers make a good match for the ASF. For
>> example, I don't think that people who want to release their code as GPL are
>> welcome here. :-)
>
> right - well I guess this should be publicised somewhere. What about
> projects that "start" here - ie tomcat never had a community before it got
> here, nor did velocity I assume, nor possibly some of the regular
> expression libs.
Actually, Velocity and Tomcat did already have communities from the point of
view in that they had several developers (including ASF members) who were
willing to be part of the development from day one. In fact, when I was
explaining to the PMC why I wanted to create the Velocity project, that was
a specific concern of both James and Craig. I addressed that concern by
simply pointing to the fact that we had 3-4 people working on the project at
the time already.
As for the Regexp project, that was sponsored by myself...an ASF member as
well as James Davidson, another ASF member. That was enough to pass the vote
at the PMC level at the time.
> Well I disagree - for your lack of interest you should be but not for your
> lack of ability ;)
I'm going to assume that was made in jest. :-)
>> Correct. I think that that is a good estimation of me in fact. I tend to be
>> short in my responses cause I don't have time to spend an hour sending each
>> and every person a beautiful email that will make their day. :-)
>
> I wasn't actually referring to you ;)
I understand that. But as a ASF/PMC member, I was. :-)
>> I think that your assumption about management happening behind closed doors
>> is 100% incorrect. I would change that to be something along the lines that
>> we are all volunteers and extremely busy and if anything *no* management is
>> going on and hence the issues that have been coming up.
>
> well how do I know that? I don't know who is on PMC, how many peeps are on
> it etc.
Yawn...
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/whoweare.html>
AND (links to the above page from:)
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/roles.html>
> Decisions are made that effect me as a developer but I have no say
> in it - or at least I am not given oportunity to have a say ;) Also members
> of Apache have stated they don't feel like they have a say - so ...
> somewhere along the lines there is miscommunication.
Actually, you are given much of an opportunity to have a say. That is what
you are doing now, correct? You are voicing your opinions. This is something
that I do a lot on. The people who sit back and watch things don't have as
much of a "say" because they are not taking part in the grand scheme of
things.
At the next ASF meeting I will nominate you to become a member because you
have been contributing a lot and I would like to see you contribute more.
That is how it works.
>> Not true at all! You can send email to the PMC mailing lists and get
>> responses. We get *very* little email to the Jakarta PMC mailing list from
>> the public. Why? You tell me.
>
> how many people know about it? how many people feel they could approach the
> list. Even if they approach the list whats th guarentee they will get the
> full conversation. I have been cc'ed on discussions and only got half-ideas
> of whats going on because not everyone CC's out the mail and again there is
> miscommunication ;)
Great suggestion! Submit a patch that includes the PMC address more
prominently on the website.
In other words, again, we are volunteers and we aren't going to think of
each and every single little detail. We expect to get feedback from the
community on things. It may be obvious to you at this point that we are
missing a PMC email address on the website, however, to us, we have a
bazillion other things to worry about. Therefore, it is up to the community
to step up and help us out.
>>> I know there is mailing lists that the public is restricted from accessing
>>> and only the clique may get in - however why is this necessary ? I
>>> understand that there may be - on rare occasions - a need to discuss
>>> details under a NDA and thus outside the public eye. However - what about
>>> the remainder of the time. Is there any need to exclude the rest of the
>>> community?
>>
>> Ok, so you are asking us to double our workload in order to make you happy?
>
> actually the exact opposite.
Well, the above suggestion would increase my workload unless you have a way
to intelligently filter messages that should go to the public view and those
that shouldn't.
>> I don't think so. Again, your assumptions about all this "management"
>> happening behind closed doors is fully incorrect.
>>
>> It is important that corporations have the ability to have a place where
>> they can email privately to a core select set of individuals and expect to
>> get a timely response. That is what the PMC has been serving a role as.
>
> I am not sure why this is needed and couldn't be provided in the open. Even
> if this is needed why isn't the rest of the public given access to list
> archives - don't you think it would aid communication, understanding and
> help build a better community ? ;)
Because those archives may contain NDA sensitive material. I thought we
already covered that. Are you now saying that you expect me to filter the
archives in order to provide them for public view? Again, you are increasing
my workload and I'm already busy enough.
> Either $4 or $8 a minute from Melbourne, Australia during daytime using
> telstra (Australias main provider).
I think you can do better than that.
<http://www.google.com/search?q=cheap+phone+rates+from+australia>
This link even lowers that to something like $0.027/min (USD)
<http://www.callback4u.com/rates.htm>
> What do you think I am trying to do ;) I can't *do* anything at the moment
> because my opinion is carries no weight. I am neither member of Apache or a
> PMC member and I can't help if I can't participate. I also can't help if I
> don't know what needs doing. This is the case when I am just a member of
> dev lists.
Ok, so then lets fix that by nominating you for membership in the ASF for
the next round of voting (I believe it happens every ApacheCon).
> Consider the following. A while back me and Kevin Burton submitted a unit
> testing framework similar to junit with added functional testing aswell
> (via HttpUnit and similar projects). We were told thanks but no thanks as
> junit was supposed to be coming here. When junit guys decided against
> apache for whatever reason (another conclusion inaccessible to public) we
> weren't informed and it became clear that there was little interest in a
> universal Apache unit testing setup.
Actually, to clarify, the JUnit people decided to not use us...not because
we were being slow, but for their own reasons. As far as the
miscommunication...again, we are not perfect, nor do we set the expectations
that we are.
> I also attempted to try to establish some set of conventions for build
> files a while back. Standard targets, standard proeprties, standard
> directory structure etc. I asked around and you brought it to PMC IIRC ?
> Stefano told me there was basically no interest in it and to wait till
> after ApacheCon when you would discuss it (don't know if you did or not).
> After ApacheCon there was still no interest so I dropped it.
Again, just because things take time or not picked up immediately doesn't
mean that they are dropped entirely. Again, you are expecting VOLUNTEERS to
cater to your every suggestion. I don't think that is a reasonable
expectation.
In fact, I DID bring it up to the PMC level and there was interest, however
at the time, I didn't have the energy to follow it through and no one else
did either.
I also didn't see you actually take the effort to make your suggestions
reality. For example, Sam has been working with all the projects he is
listing on his Tinderbox page in order to improve them and upgrade them to
work with his system. Did you take that extra effort? No. You got fed up and
dropped it as well.
> So I was knocked back trying to improve the technical infrastructure - not
> for lack of trying. My conclusion was that basically I had buckleys chance
> of getting anything done technically or non-technically unless I got people
> to champion my opinion because I have basically no political power.
It has nothing to do with political power and does have *everything* to do
with championing your opinion. In the ASF, political power buys you
absolutely nothing because none of the members other than the people on the
board have any final say over what happens. This isn't like a corporation
where you can force people to do things for you.
> Oh really - then where can I find out the basis of all your
> opinions/decisions in past. Why was project X knocked back? Why did
> decision/ruling X get made? What happens to projects that were "in-process"
> of being Apache-blessed
Give me real concrete examples please because what you are working on at
this point is entirely speculation.
> - ie whatever happened to the content management
> project that Stefano was trying to bring here etc.
I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about here.
> There is lots of things I don't know. How can I help if I don't know what I
> am helping, how I should be helping and what I could be helping?
Stand up and take charge instead of sitting back and being the victim.
That is what you don't understand about this volunteer organization. You
think that everything has to be political when in fact, this organization is
merely run by popular vote (the +1 system) and people willing to stand up
and actually do work.
> I see - but that just emphasizes my point. As you said there is currently
> very little management going on and as a result issues have arisen. The PMC
> has members who have heavy workloads and lite PMC duties - their PMC duties
> consisting of management. See my point ;)
Yes, I see your point, however, the work involved with the PMC is very
small. The problems have arrived not from the PMC level, but from an overall
growth level. We have been growing like mad and will/have be/been experience
growth pains. Again, we are not perfect. I need to hammer that into your
head more.
My point is:
If the PMC was open, it would still make mistakes.
> The PMC could be doing much more either directly or through intermediates
> but this will never occur as you guys are already overworked. Consequently
> allowing other people to participate would get more done. They would take
> up the slack and undoubtably think of more interesting directions to go.
Not necessarily. Having more people also increases the amount that needs to
be managed.
> If the current PMC still wanted authoritarian control it would still be
> possible by channeling only "high quality feeds" up the PMC tree. So lower
> down PMCs have to doo the shit kicking while you guys get to make final
> decisions. Theres many ways of doing it and you can decided for yourself.
> Is more people particpating in the process and presumably a better
> resulting organization acceptable for the slight diminish in power you guys
> will take. I think so but YMMV ;)
That is exactly what is already going on!
> Umm - no I am *commenting* that there is little possibility in me being
> involved for practical reasons. As I said I have in the past got up at 4:30
> am Monday morning to participate in projects I believed in. I believe in
> Apaches way but I am barred from particpating due to setup. I find this
> unfortunate.
"due to setup"? What does that mean exactly? Because you think that a phone
call costs more than it does?
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 05:48 14/1/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>> I know it's out of context but this neatly summarizes it doesn't it ;) What
>> you may ask - well let me elaborate. When I first started working with
>> Apache peeps it was great - I never heard any complaints or had any issues.
>> It was Stefano who introduced of sorts to it all so if I wanted something I
>> would bug him and it would happen ;)
>>
>> Then I started hearing grumblings from a few people. Usually they involved
>> one of these points
>
>In other words, it is much easier to be critical of the people who are in
>public eye.
not sure what you mean by this.
>Projects which already have a community built up around it and a member is
>willing to sponsor it and the developers make a good match for the ASF. For
>example, I don't think that people who want to release their code as GPL are
>welcome here. :-)
right - well I guess this should be publicised somewhere. What about
projects that "start" here - ie tomcat never had a community before it got
here, nor did velocity I assume, nor possibly some of the regular
expression libs.
>Should we be raked over the coals for our lack of
>interest or ability as a volunteer organization to handle each and every
>request perfectly? I don't think so.
Well I disagree - for your lack of interest you should be but not for your
lack of ability ;)
>Correct. I think that that is a good estimation of me in fact. I tend to be
>short in my responses cause I don't have time to spend an hour sending each
>and every person a beautiful email that will make their day. :-)
I wasn't actually referring to you ;)
>I think that your assumption about management happening behind closed doors
>is 100% incorrect. I would change that to be something along the lines that
>we are all volunteers and extremely busy and if anything *no* management is
>going on and hence the issues that have been coming up.
well how do I know that? I don't know who is on PMC, how many peeps are on
it etc. Decisions are made that effect me as a developer but I have no say
in it - or at least I am not given oportunity to have a say ;) Also members
of Apache have stated they don't feel like they have a say - so ...
somewhere along the lines there is miscommunication.
>Not true at all! You can send email to the PMC mailing lists and get
>responses. We get *very* little email to the Jakarta PMC mailing list from
>the public. Why? You tell me.
how many people know about it? how many people feel they could approach the
list. Even if they approach the list whats th guarentee they will get the
full conversation. I have been cc'ed on discussions and only got half-ideas
of whats going on because not everyone CC's out the mail and again there is
miscommunication ;)
>> I know there is mailing lists that the public is restricted from accessing
>> and only the clique may get in - however why is this necessary ? I
>> understand that there may be - on rare occasions - a need to discuss
>> details under a NDA and thus outside the public eye. However - what about
>> the remainder of the time. Is there any need to exclude the rest of the
>> community?
>
>Ok, so you are asking us to double our workload in order to make you happy?
actually the exact opposite.
>I don't think so. Again, your assumptions about all this "management"
>happening behind closed doors is fully incorrect.
>
>It is important that corporations have the ability to have a place where
>they can email privately to a core select set of individuals and expect to
>get a timely response. That is what the PMC has been serving a role as.
I am not sure why this is needed and couldn't be provided in the open. Even
if this is needed why isn't the rest of the public given access to list
archives - don't you think it would aid communication, understanding and
help build a better community ? ;)
>> This is not the only exclusionary practices I have noticed either. This
>> meeting proposed is another example of practices that (possibly
>> inadvertently) are exclusionary. The vast majority of the jakarta/java
>> apache community would find it impossible to actually participate due to
>> practical reasons. Personally it would cost me about $4000 to go factoring
>> in travel, accomodation and time-off - and a phone call while cheaper would
>> still run me up just under $1000 (depends on mapping to local timezone).
>
>$1000 for a couple hour phone call? I find that impossible to believe. What
>phone company are you using?
Either $4 or $8 a minute from Melbourne, Australia during daytime using
telstra (Australias main provider).
>> For instance - it is somewhat disturbing that the fate of ant is going to
>> be decided at this meeting when the majority of active committers are not
>> present. Even more disturbing is that it is the person who has been focus
>> of conflict on ant and set out in many ways to destroy the community and
>> rebuild it in his own image that will be preciding over the discussion and
>> consequently will have a large say in the matter.
>
>Right. A conclusion was not reached on the mailing list. Therefore the
>situation has been escalated to the PMC level. I see nothing wrong with that
>as that is the same thing that we are having to do with Tomcat.
>> Now I am not saying it is the fault of anyone - I believe the PM have the
>> best intentions at heart and do put in a lot to make it work. However there
>> is the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" ;)
>
>If you really believe we are headed towards hell, then please volunteer to
>help improve it, not make it worse.
What do you think I am trying to do ;) I can't *do* anything at the moment
because my opinion is carries no weight. I am neither member of Apache or a
PMC member and I can't help if I can't participate. I also can't help if I
don't know what needs doing. This is the case when I am just a member of
dev lists.
Consider the following. A while back me and Kevin Burton submitted a unit
testing framework similar to junit with added functional testing aswell
(via HttpUnit and similar projects). We were told thanks but no thanks as
junit was supposed to be coming here. When junit guys decided against
apache for whatever reason (another conclusion inaccessible to public) we
weren't informed and it became clear that there was little interest in a
universal Apache unit testing setup.
I also attempted to try to establish some set of conventions for build
files a while back. Standard targets, standard proeprties, standard
directory structure etc. I asked around and you brought it to PMC IIRC ?
Stefano told me there was basically no interest in it and to wait till
after ApacheCon when you would discuss it (don't know if you did or not).
After ApacheCon there was still no interest so I dropped it.
So I was knocked back trying to improve the technical infrastructure - not
for lack of trying. My conclusion was that basically I had buckleys chance
of getting anything done technically or non-technically unless I got people
to champion my opinion because I have basically no political power.
>Opening the organization has nothing to do with making people more aware of
>things as this portion of the organization is already 100% open.
Oh really - then where can I find out the basis of all your
opinions/decisions in past. Why was project X knocked back? Why did
decision/ruling X get made? What happens to projects that were "in-process"
of being Apache-blessed - ie whatever happened to the content management
project that Stefano was trying to bring here etc.
There is lots of things I don't know. How can I help if I don't know what I
am helping, how I should be helping and what I could be helping?
>> and generally relieve the
>> workload on PMC. It would also be one step closer to building a better
>> community. There could be a few objections but I believe if you are not
>> comfortable saying something in public then you probably shouldn't be
>> saying it in the first place ;)
>
>The workload on the PMC is currently very small. The workload of the
>individual volunteers on the PMC is currently very large. Do you see the
>difference?
I see - but that just emphasizes my point. As you said there is currently
very little management going on and as a result issues have arisen. The PMC
has members who have heavy workloads and lite PMC duties - their PMC duties
consisting of management. See my point ;)
The PMC could be doing much more either directly or through intermediates
but this will never occur as you guys are already overworked. Consequently
allowing other people to participate would get more done. They would take
up the slack and undoubtably think of more interesting directions to go.
If the current PMC still wanted authoritarian control it would still be
possible by channeling only "high quality feeds" up the PMC tree. So lower
down PMCs have to doo the shit kicking while you guys get to make final
decisions. Theres many ways of doing it and you can decided for yourself.
Is more people particpating in the process and presumably a better
resulting organization acceptable for the slight diminish in power you guys
will take. I think so but YMMV ;)
>> This still leaves the problem of realtime/high-bandwidth collaboration. No
>> matter what you do there are going to be people who are excluded for one
>> reason or another but it is best to minimize that. The only solution that I
>> can think of for decent collaboration is probably IRC or something similar.
>> It is still difficuly for the timezone challenged (ie I used to get up at
>> 4:30 am *shudder* Monday morning to participate in certain groups) but
>> usually these effects can be minimized. I am sure there are some irc
>> servers that would be willing to host apache discussions. As a bonus people
>> could even save transcripts so others could see what went down.
>
>Ok, so you are complaining because the VERY FIRST PMC meeting is going to
>make you wake up early in the morning?
Umm - no I am *commenting* that there is little possibility in me being
involved for practical reasons. As I said I have in the past got up at 4:30
am Monday morning to participate in projects I believed in. I believe in
Apaches way but I am barred from particpating due to setup. I find this
unfortunate.
>If you are really that interested in
>things, I'm sure you can suffer having to do so. For what it is worth, I'm
>suffering cause I have to drive an hour in traffic that morning and all you
>need to do is pick up the phone. :-)
;)
Cheers,
Pete
*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof." |
| - John Kenneth Galbraith |
*-----------------------------------------------------*
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/14/01 5:00 PM, "Peter Donald" <do...@apache.org> wrote:
> At 05:43 13/1/01 -0800, Hans Bergsten wrote:
>> If you have any interest in the future of the Jakarta project, I think you
>> should come.
>
> I know it's out of context but this neatly summarizes it doesn't it ;) What
> you may ask - well let me elaborate. When I first started working with
> Apache peeps it was great - I never heard any complaints or had any issues.
> It was Stefano who introduced of sorts to it all so if I wanted something I
> would bug him and it would happen ;)
>
> Then I started hearing grumblings from a few people. Usually they involved
> one of these points
In other words, it is much easier to be critical of the people who are in
public eye.
> 1. It is too slow to get projects hosted at Apache unless you are good
> friends with PMC members
> 2. Some people were trying to bully/intimadate others because they were on
> the PMC/were in the clique
> 3. Outside projects had to work to get hosted rather than Apache working to
> aquire them
Right. The ASF is not trying to be sourceforge. Hosting of projects on ASF
sites are strictly supposed to be reserved for:
Projects which already have a community built up around it and a member is
willing to sponsor it and the developers make a good match for the ASF. For
example, I don't think that people who want to release their code as GPL are
welcome here. :-)
I may have gotten some of that wrong and missed a few points, but that is
the general gist of it as I see it. In the past, we have made mistakes with
dealing with people on hosting projects and have actually lost a couple
projects as a result. Should we be raked over the coals for our lack of
interest or ability as a volunteer organization to handle each and every
request perfectly? I don't think so.
> I pretty much ignored them as they didn't effect me and to a large extent I
> don't care for the politicing. A bit later I heard even worse criticism
> about the process mainly from a few bitter individuals/groups thou I think
> most of what they said was unwarranted so it is of no use repeating it
> here. One thing I noticed was that some of the politicers seemed to be
> under stress and a little overworked - and consequently a little short ;)
Correct. I think that that is a good estimation of me in fact. I tend to be
short in my responses cause I don't have time to spend an hour sending each
and every person a beautiful email that will make their day. :-)
> Recently I have been forced to stick my head up and look around at this
> structure. I am not a member of apache so immediately a number of doors
> were closed. I tried asking people things and basically they said - "I
> dunno" to 90% of the questions. I initially presumed it was because most
> people weren't members. So I asked a member and they were in the dark
> aswell ... hmmm. Aparently management still takes place behind closed doors
> away from the groups own members ! Eek. Not pretty - another member also
> noted this and expressed the fact they were for intents powerless to effect
> this.
I think that your assumption about management happening behind closed doors
is 100% incorrect. I would change that to be something along the lines that
we are all volunteers and extremely busy and if anything *no* management is
going on and hence the issues that have been coming up.
> I have been thinking how I would do it and I came to the conclusion that
> the only way to run it is by "opening" management up. This is an opensource
> group so why not "opensource" the leadership? Currently jakarta is led from
> behind closed doors by privlidged members. You can not gain access - at
> least easily - to the resources within Apache.
Not true at all! You can send email to the PMC mailing lists and get
responses. We get *very* little email to the Jakarta PMC mailing list from
the public. Why? You tell me.
> I know there is mailing lists that the public is restricted from accessing
> and only the clique may get in - however why is this necessary ? I
> understand that there may be - on rare occasions - a need to discuss
> details under a NDA and thus outside the public eye. However - what about
> the remainder of the time. Is there any need to exclude the rest of the
> community?
Ok, so you are asking us to double our workload in order to make you happy?
I don't think so. Again, your assumptions about all this "management"
happening behind closed doors is fully incorrect.
It is important that corporations have the ability to have a place where
they can email privately to a core select set of individuals and expect to
get a timely response. That is what the PMC has been serving a role as.
> This is not the only exclusionary practices I have noticed either. This
> meeting proposed is another example of practices that (possibly
> inadvertently) are exclusionary. The vast majority of the jakarta/java
> apache community would find it impossible to actually participate due to
> practical reasons. Personally it would cost me about $4000 to go factoring
> in travel, accomodation and time-off - and a phone call while cheaper would
> still run me up just under $1000 (depends on mapping to local timezone).
$1000 for a couple hour phone call? I find that impossible to believe. What
phone company are you using?
> Consequently the decisions for the community will be made by a presumably
> close-nit, geographically close group of friends that more than likely
> share similar opinions. So how is it possible that they could possibly
> represent the views of the community?
"presumably" is a key word there. Reality is not so. In fact, Sun is paying
to fly out a couple of the PMC members as well as paying for the phone
conferencing ability. That is a nice and appreciated act on Sun's part.
> For instance - it is somewhat disturbing that the fate of ant is going to
> be decided at this meeting when the majority of active committers are not
> present. Even more disturbing is that it is the person who has been focus
> of conflict on ant and set out in many ways to destroy the community and
> rebuild it in his own image that will be preciding over the discussion and
> consequently will have a large say in the matter.
Right. A conclusion was not reached on the mailing list. Therefore the
situation has been escalated to the PMC level. I see nothing wrong with that
as that is the same thing that we are having to do with Tomcat.
> Now I am not saying it is the fault of anyone - I believe the PM have the
> best intentions at heart and do put in a lot to make it work. However there
> is the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" ;)
If you really believe we are headed towards hell, then please volunteer to
help improve it, not make it worse.
> I believe opening the organisation would help this. Hopefully people would
> be able to become more aware of the resources at Apache (like our JCP rep),
> more willing to help out with boring administrative stuff (most people
> aren't aware you can "patch" the website)
The maintenance of the website is documented on the website.
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/jakarta-site2.html>
Opening the organization has nothing to do with making people more aware of
things as this portion of the organization is already 100% open. The only
way to make people more aware of things is to document things better.
However, as my example above states...people don't even read that.
> and generally relieve the
> workload on PMC. It would also be one step closer to building a better
> community. There could be a few objections but I believe if you are not
> comfortable saying something in public then you probably shouldn't be
> saying it in the first place ;)
The workload on the PMC is currently very small. The workload of the
individual volunteers on the PMC is currently very large. Do you see the
difference?
> Another change that could occur is the restriction of "official"
> face-to-face meetings to times like ApacheCon. It would be at this time
> that AGMs/votes/whatever could take place so you get high bandwidth and
> high fidelity.
I am in full agreement of that.
> This still leaves the problem of realtime/high-bandwidth collaboration. No
> matter what you do there are going to be people who are excluded for one
> reason or another but it is best to minimize that. The only solution that I
> can think of for decent collaboration is probably IRC or something similar.
> It is still difficuly for the timezone challenged (ie I used to get up at
> 4:30 am *shudder* Monday morning to participate in certain groups) but
> usually these effects can be minimized. I am sure there are some irc
> servers that would be willing to host apache discussions. As a bonus people
> could even save transcripts so others could see what went down.
Ok, so you are complaining because the VERY FIRST PMC meeting is going to
make you wake up early in the morning? If you are really that interested in
things, I'm sure you can suffer having to do so. For what it is worth, I'm
suffering cause I have to drive an hour in traffic that morning and all you
need to do is pick up the phone. :-)
-jon
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 05:43 13/1/01 -0800, Hans Bergsten wrote:
>If you have any interest in the future of the Jakarta project, I think you
>should come.
I know it's out of context but this neatly summarizes it doesn't it ;) What
you may ask - well let me elaborate. When I first started working with
Apache peeps it was great - I never heard any complaints or had any issues.
It was Stefano who introduced of sorts to it all so if I wanted something I
would bug him and it would happen ;)
Then I started hearing grumblings from a few people. Usually they involved
one of these points
1. It is too slow to get projects hosted at Apache unless you are good
friends with PMC members
2. Some people were trying to bully/intimadate others because they were on
the PMC/were in the clique
3. Outside projects had to work to get hosted rather than Apache working to
aquire them
I pretty much ignored them as they didn't effect me and to a large extent I
don't care for the politicing. A bit later I heard even worse criticism
about the process mainly from a few bitter individuals/groups thou I think
most of what they said was unwarranted so it is of no use repeating it
here. One thing I noticed was that some of the politicers seemed to be
under stress and a little overworked - and consequently a little short ;)
Recently I have been forced to stick my head up and look around at this
structure. I am not a member of apache so immediately a number of doors
were closed. I tried asking people things and basically they said - "I
dunno" to 90% of the questions. I initially presumed it was because most
people weren't members. So I asked a member and they were in the dark
aswell ... hmmm. Aparently management still takes place behind closed doors
away from the groups own members ! Eek. Not pretty - another member also
noted this and expressed the fact they were for intents powerless to effect
this.
Of course I see these things as problems. So what I would like is for them
to be addressed in some form ;)
I have been thinking how I would do it and I came to the conclusion that
the only way to run it is by "opening" management up. This is an opensource
group so why not "opensource" the leadership? Currently jakarta is led from
behind closed doors by privlidged members. You can not gain access - at
least easily - to the resources within Apache.
I know there is mailing lists that the public is restricted from accessing
and only the clique may get in - however why is this necessary ? I
understand that there may be - on rare occasions - a need to discuss
details under a NDA and thus outside the public eye. However - what about
the remainder of the time. Is there any need to exclude the rest of the
community?
This is not the only exclusionary practices I have noticed either. This
meeting proposed is another example of practices that (possibly
inadvertently) are exclusionary. The vast majority of the jakarta/java
apache community would find it impossible to actually participate due to
practical reasons. Personally it would cost me about $4000 to go factoring
in travel, accomodation and time-off - and a phone call while cheaper would
still run me up just under $1000 (depends on mapping to local timezone).
Consequently the decisions for the community will be made by a presumably
close-nit, geographically close group of friends that more than likely
share similar opinions. So how is it possible that they could possibly
represent the views of the community?
For instance - it is somewhat disturbing that the fate of ant is going to
be decided at this meeting when the majority of active committers are not
present. Even more disturbing is that it is the person who has been focus
of conflict on ant and set out in many ways to destroy the community and
rebuild it in his own image that will be preciding over the discussion and
consequently will have a large say in the matter.
Now I am not saying it is the fault of anyone - I believe the PM have the
best intentions at heart and do put in a lot to make it work. However there
is the saying "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" ;)
I believe opening the organisation would help this. Hopefully people would
be able to become more aware of the resources at Apache (like our JCP rep),
more willing to help out with boring administrative stuff (most people
aren't aware you can "patch" the website) and generally relieve the
workload on PMC. It would also be one step closer to building a better
community. There could be a few objections but I believe if you are not
comfortable saying something in public then you probably shouldn't be
saying it in the first place ;)
Another change that could occur is the restriction of "official"
face-to-face meetings to times like ApacheCon. It would be at this time
that AGMs/votes/whatever could take place so you get high bandwidth and
high fidelity.
This still leaves the problem of realtime/high-bandwidth collaboration. No
matter what you do there are going to be people who are excluded for one
reason or another but it is best to minimize that. The only solution that I
can think of for decent collaboration is probably IRC or something similar.
It is still difficuly for the timezone challenged (ie I used to get up at
4:30 am *shudder* Monday morning to participate in certain groups) but
usually these effects can be minimized. I am sure there are some irc
servers that would be willing to host apache discussions. As a bonus people
could even save transcripts so others could see what went down.
I am sure there are other collaborative tools out there that we could use
aswell...
Anyways thats just a few thoughts.
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Computers are useless. They can only give you |
| answers." - Pablo Picasso |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision
> > about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process
> > for managing the factors that created the current situation will
> > be moving forward. For reference you may want to read:
> >
> > http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
> >
> > The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this
> > debate be present at this meeting to discuss.
>
> Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the
> PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand
> why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general.
I was silent in the most recent discussion on this list because
I have already expressed my opinions about the issue earlier and
didn't find the latest debate productive.
> If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had
> enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the
> debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about
> the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project
> commiters ).
The meeting is not a "debate with Jon"; it's a PMC meeting with "open
doors". Jon is only one of seven PMC members, and the meeting will also
be attended by ASF board members. If you have any interest in the future
of
the Jakarta project, I think you should come.
> IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it
> seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting.
I don't always agree with what Jon says, but how he behaves is up to
him and hardly something I want on the agenda for a meeting ;-)
And for the record, it was James that called the meeting.
Hans
> ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat -
> I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back )
>
> Costin
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/13/01 12:58 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the
> PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand
> why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general.
No, I think you don't want to be part of the project because the project
decided to go in one direction and you went in another without even
expressing your own vote (everyone else voted but you)!
<http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
> If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had
> enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the
> debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about
> the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project
> commiters ).
You are talking about two different things in the same sentence.
#1. You are done debating with me.
#2. You now disagree with the PMC making this decision.
My reply:
#1. I'm also done debating with you. I already changed my votes to a +1.
Remember?
#2. You are now also disagreeing (right before the meeting????) with the PMC
attempting to rectify the solution because we all (the active developers on
tomcat-dev) failed to come up with a solution on the mailing lists.
Therefore, I hear that you are now saying that you expect that your solution
is the one and only solution without giving any sort of comfort to the rest
of the people working on this project who are following the projects voted
on path.
> IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate -
Now you would like to control my behavior? Who do you think you are?
> but it seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting.
How exactly am I an organizer? It was not me who suggested that the meeting
happen, it was James.
> ( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat -
> I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back )
Either you are a bit more involved than you might think or you would like to
play off to everyone else that you aren't. Which is it?
thanks,
-jon
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
>*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision
> about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process
> for managing the factors that created the current situation will
> be moving forward. For reference you may want to read:
>
> http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
>
> The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this
> debate be present at this meeting to discuss.
Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the
PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand
why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general.
If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had
enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the
debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about
the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project
commiters ).
IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it
seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting.
( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat -
I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back )
Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 12:10 15/1/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Actually NOTHING has been debated OR decided on any of the closed lists. I
>wonder how many times I (and others) need to repeat that to you before you
>actually hear and acknowledge it.
every time it arises or there is conflict - thats the joy of closed lists
;)
;)
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Computers are useless. They can only give you |
| answers." - Pablo Picasso |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Scott Sanders <sa...@totalsync.com>.
Jon,
On the TinderBox/CJAN topic, how much earlier than the meeting should we
arrive?
Scott Sanders
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 2:32 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm not going to fork tomcat3, nor to abandon it - but for any new
> features and ideas I'll use a separate workspace, where I can work
> without fighting.
>
> --
> Costin
Great! I encourage you to do so!
-jon
--
Honk if you love peace and quiet.
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> You must go to the list and post a clear statement that you will fight
> until the end to finish what you started - 1st inside tomcat and, if
> not possible, even outside Tomcat.
> Please don't attack anyone, don't fight anyone, don't argument about
> past elections and decisions - Jon and others are always able to fight
> that.
Well, thank you very much for the advice - so I want to make it clear:
Tomcat 3.3 exists and it has damn good architecture and performance. It is
also clean and maintainable.
I am going to fight for it - because I think on the long term it's going
to be the best servlet container.
I am very disapointed with the way things work on tomcat-dev, and I'll try
to stay away as much as possible - but that doesn't mean I'll stop
supporting it. It just means that I'll try to develop new modules (
implementing new features like servlet 2.3 support, or porting JMX and
JNDI support from catalina ) _outside_ tomcat. I'll also stay away from
projects where Jon and the gang are involved.
I'm doing that because I want to have more freedom and control over what
I'm doing. I don't want the PMC or Craig to decide for me if I can
implement Servlet 2.3.
But as long as there is a chance for Tomcat 3.x to _evolve_ I'll stick
around - because of the people like Nacho, Larry, Paolo and all other who
put time and code into it.
I'm not going to fork tomcat3, nor to abandon it - but for any new
features and ideas I'll use a separate workspace, where I can work
without fighting.
--
Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 2:20 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Many people feel that 3.3 is the safest bet for the next year. Some of us
> want to keep real world production sites running with real world
> constraints. Those of us can postpone using the beautiful new features of
> Catalina but still need something a bit better than 3.2.
I'm not arguing that point at all.
>> My question that I'm going to bring up at the PMC meeting is:
>>
>> Where does it stop? If we release 3.3 and there are bugs in it, do we then
>> release 3.3.1...3.3.2...3.3.3...3.4...etc...or do we call it quits on that
>> tree and focus on 4.0?
>
> Sam and others already stated that 3.3 is easier to maintain. They did take
> a look at the code.
>
> You don't believe them?
That has nothing to do with the question.
>> Costin has already stated that he is going to disappear. I have
>> yet to see a
>> real solid answer on *when* he is going to disappear, but that probably
>> primarily depends on whether or not there will be a 3.3 release from the
>> Jakarta Project (as decided by the PMC).
>
> He also did most of the commits in 3.2. At least, even if he disappears, he
> is leaving behind something easier to maintain.
I'm not contesting that.
> The difference is that several valid committers and users might go too. And
> those are potential future committers/users that would evolve to Tomcat 4
> in one year or less.
I have been doing this long enough now that I don't even given a glimmer of
hope towards "potentials". I only glimmer on people who step up and say they
are willing to do something now *and* for the future.
Also, if those people go, they will go regardless. If they come back, they
will come back regardless. Most of the people involved with Tomcat
development are being paid for it in one way or another (like Larry with
SAS).
> P.S.: It is great to see how your manage your heavy schedule with such
> skill that you find time to keep all this fight going on.
It isn't a fight. It is preparation for the meeting. I want to make sure
that everyone gets in their voice of opinion and also gets a response. I'm
tired of being considered doing things behind closed doors. Now I'm going to
make damn sure that you get to see it fully in the open.
thanks,
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
The saga goes on...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 22:17
>
> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
> because I don't see that as being right. I also don't see a problem with
> questioning the fact that he has completely ignored what we have voted on
> (to the point where he didn't even vote himself!). I don't understand how
> you all can accept Costin's lone wolf mentality when this is supposed to
> really be a community effort.
Many people feel that 3.3 is the safest bet for the next year. Some of us
want to keep real world production sites running with real world
constraints. Those of us can postpone using the beautiful new features of
Catalina but still need something a bit better than 3.2.
> My question that I'm going to bring up at the PMC meeting is:
>
> Where does it stop? If we release 3.3 and there are bugs in it, do we then
> release 3.3.1...3.3.2...3.3.3...3.4...etc...or do we call it quits on that
> tree and focus on 4.0?
Sam and others already stated that 3.3 is easier to maintain. They did take
a look at the code.
You don't believe them?
> Costin has already stated that he is going to disappear. I have
> yet to see a
> real solid answer on *when* he is going to disappear, but that probably
> primarily depends on whether or not there will be a 3.3 release from the
> Jakarta Project (as decided by the PMC).
He also did most of the commits in 3.2. At least, even if he disappears, he
is leaving behind something easier to maintain.
> If he decides to disappear after 3.3 is released (which is what he has
> currently stated he will do), then I would be very against making a 3.3
> release within the Jakarta project as the primary developer is
> not going to
> be around to support it. I would much rather see the 3.3 release happen in
> the forum that he is going to be support it under as that will be
> better for
> the community.
>
> Heck, today, anyone could go to sourceforge and do their own
> release of the
> software and call it FooBar 3.3. Same exact code. What is the real
> difference?
The difference is that several valid committers and users might go too. And
those are potential future committers/users that would evolve to Tomcat 4
in one year or less.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
P.S.: It is great to see how your manage your heavy schedule with such
skill that you find time to keep all this fight going on.
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Jon, It is the 2nd time I see you making this kind of remark and it stinks.
This kind of argumentation is quite dirty, even for you.
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:13
>
> on 1/15/01 5:58 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from
> any active
> > development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
> > ). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.
>
> Right and you picked it up as your paid job until you were moved
> to another
> project within Sun. Since you have been so forward today, would you also
> like to expand on why you were switched over to an XML project internally?
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Yes, poor Jon!!!
I was the one that started and all hum?
Have fun,
Paulo
P.S.: It was just an interesting one day experiment: trying to be as
insisting as him and never quit (as he usualy doesn't). I can tell you
I will not repeat it very often - takes too much of my time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob S. [mailto:rslifka@home.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:39
>
>
> Paulo, cut the shit. I'm 23 and I have the requisite maturity to
> not behave
> like this. If you want to talk, talk, but enough attacking/provoking Jon.
>
> - r
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by "Rob S." <rs...@home.com>.
Paulo, cut the shit. I'm 23 and I have the requisite maturity to not behave
like this. If you want to talk, talk, but enough attacking/provoking Jon.
- r
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Since you usually agree with Hans and everybody else does too, maybe
he is just a much better communicator than you and maybe he is doing
a much better job.
So, why don't you just follow the very good advise?
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:13
>
>
> > Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do
> the talking?
>
> How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or
> something?
>
> -jon
>
>
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 5:58 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from any active
> development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
> ). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.
Right and you picked it up as your paid job until you were moved to another
project within Sun. Since you have been so forward today, would you also
like to expand on why you were switched over to an XML project internally?
> I don't have any doubt that Larry and Nacho and the others can pick up if
> I disappear, and I'm not going to abandon tomcat 3.3.
I'm not convinced of that yet given that you have been the one doing the
majority of the commits and development work. (No offense to Larry or
Nacho).
> In any case, you don't seem to maintain or work on any piece of code in
> 3.x - and you haven't in the last year, so why worry now ? Leave that to
> those who are working on this project.
It isn't necessarily code that is the issue here. In case you missed it, I'm
the contact point for all Jakarta related email.
<http://www.apache.org/foundation/preFAQ.html>
I get a fairly substantial amount of support email as a result of that as
well as other sources. I'm happy to do the job, but I'm also going to do
what I can to reduce the amount of work I have to do. Something about the
number of hours in a day...
>> I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.
>
> That's why the 2.3 facade for 3.3 will not be released under jakarta.
You say that now. However, would you have said that before I started this
mess? I don't think so. That was not the direction you were moving in and
your commits clearly didn't show that as you did start work on it and were
asked to stop...
>> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
>> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
>> saying all along.
>
> Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
How should I respond to this, with a comment about your mother or something?
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> What problems do I have again?
>
> Lets see, I can think of a few:
>
> I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead developer has
> disappeared.
The lead developer for Tomcat has disappeared 1 year ago ( from any active
development or support in tomcat, he's still around doing other projects
). That's BTW the best prove of a project viability.
I don't have any doubt that Larry and Nacho and the others can pick up if
I disappear, and I'm not going to abandon tomcat 3.3.
In any case, you don't seem to maintain or work on any piece of code in
3.x - and you haven't in the last year, so why worry now ? Leave that to
those who are working on this project.
> I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.
That's why the 2.3 facade for 3.3 will not be released under jakarta.
> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> saying all along.
Than maybe it would be a good idea to shut up and let Hans do the talking?
Costin
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Paranoia time?
Problems "getting through":
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:11
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > This makes a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Paulo
>
> Finally someone gets through to you.
>
> I also agree with Hans 100%.
>
> -jon
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:27
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:35 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
> > you are having them anyway.
> >
> > Paulo
>
> What problems do I have again?
>
> Lets see, I can think of a few:
>
> I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead developer has
> disappeared.
>
> I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.
>
> I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
> understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
> saying all along.
>
>
> Other than that, what other problems do you think am I having?
>
> -jon
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, email: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 5:35 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
> you are having them anyway.
>
> Paulo
What problems do I have again?
Lets see, I can think of a few:
I don't want to maintain code/resources for which the lead developer has
disappeared.
I don't want to see two Servlet Containers supporting 2.3 under Jakarta.
I can't get you and Costin to understand what I'm saying, however, you
understand Hans even though he said nearly the same thing that I have been
saying all along.
Other than that, what other problems do you think am I having?
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
The one person having problems is you. And it is not only with me that
you are having them anyway.
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:11
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > This makes a lot of sense to me.
> >
> > Have fun,
> > Paulo
>
> Finally someone gets through to you.
>
> I also agree with Hans 100%.
>
> -jon
>
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 5:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> This makes a lot of sense to me.
>
> Have fun,
> Paulo
Finally someone gets through to you.
I also agree with Hans 100%.
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hans@servlets.net [mailto:hans@servlets.net]On Behalf Of Hans
> Bergsten
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:53
>
>
> The motivation for two separate repositories for TC 3.x and 4.x in the
> proposal says (among other things) that
>
> "Support and enhancements of the existing Tomcat 3.x can continue
> uninterupted, without disruptions caused by development on the
> next major version. This is important because many developers
> (and server vendors) have adopted Tomcat 3.x (or plan to adopt
> Tomcat 3.2 shortly) into their environments, and will need
> continued support until they choose to migrate to Tomcat 4.x
> at some future date."
>
> So the issue at hand, IMHO, is not TC 3.x *or* TC 4.x for Servlet 2.3
> and JSP 1.2; that decision has been made. Besides, the majority of
> voices I hear in support of TC 3.3 say they want a better, stable
> and supported Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1 container, not a container that
> competes with TC 4.x as a container for the new API versions.
> The issue, IMHO, is how to best serve the TC 3.x community; continued
> 3.2 dot-releases or move to 3.3 (and dot-releases based on 3.3 after
> that)? It's not a given, considering the large differences between
> 3.2 and 3.3 (even if they seem to be for the better).
>
> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question
> is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a
> commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3.
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> > About why - it's simple, because 2.3 is the next version and to have a
> > future we must keep up to date.
>
> "We" here means you and those who follow you to sourceforge (or
> wherever), I assume?
We means people who use tomcat 3.x or contribute to 3.x - it's not an EOL
product.
I'm not encouraging or asking anyone to "follow" me - what I'm trying to
do is get people to think for themself and develop modules
- if they can get them into apache, that would be great, and I would be
happy to have my modules picked up into the main site and apache.
But developing features and exploring new ideas should be as simple as
possible - and shouldn't require interaction with Jon or alike.
In other words - the goal is to have people turning their ideas
into code and create modules for 3.3.
If anyone will choose to help me or will need my help for their modules
and enhancements - I'll be more than happy. But modules are small things
that can be developed and maintained by people who need them, not
fork-like projects.
> > In any case - I discussed about facade23 just to make clear that I
> > indeed plan to stick around doing 3.x-related stuff ( besides bug fixes ),
> > and to make clear that tomcat 3.x core has a future and will be useful for
> > more people, even post servlet 2.2.
>
> This is an example of what I see as creating confusion. You say above
> that you will take the code outside Jakarta to implement 2.3 etc. And
> then you say here that you will "stick around doing 3.x-related stuff
> (besides bug fixes)." I'm sorry, but you lost me again. If you will go
> ...
Modules. Think about mod_perl or mod_php. Or integration of tomcat into
other programs, or special high-performance or availability modules.
Same model that has been used for Apache.
> jakarta-tomcat repository (often referred to as 3.3-dev), but if this
> code also gets released as Tomcat 3.3, I'm sure your external code
> base and the Jakarta code-base will diverge over time.
The same that worked for apache will hopefully work for 3.3 - again, I
don't want to "fork" ( and check in a copy of tomcat source in a different
repository ). Tomcat 3.3 is the basis, and the modules will have to adapt
to eventual enhancements that will be made on jakarta-tomcat.
I also hope other people will start to develop their individual modules (
and I'm sure that will happen - and it already happens for 3.2 ). That
will give an extra reason for keeping the core backward compatible.
> Or do you mean that you will continue to contribute to the TC 3.x core
> within Jakarta, and only develop the modules externally (under a
> different name)? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I think it's important
> to understand exactly what you have in mind.
That's exactly what I'm trying - and I'm sorry if I can't explain my
thoughts any better. And thank you very much for helping me clarify
things.
--
Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
> > you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
> > believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
> > You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
> > for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
> > and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3
> > popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
> > where.
>
> Then let me clarify, to avoid the confusion - I don't know yet where (
> probably sourceforge or from a homepage ), and I have few ideas about
> "how". I said back in November that I am going to start a revolution with
> the 2.3 stuff and other features - and I didn't do it because finishing
> 3.3 refactoring and merging the fixes from 3.2 should happen first, and
> it's much higher priority.
Okay.
> Since November I learned a few lessons, so I'll not do a revolution - I
> don't think that will give me enough freedom ( and I'll still be at the
> mercy of the PMC ). So it'll be outside apache ( consistent with what I
> said about minimizing my involvment with apache projects ).
Okay.
> About why - it's simple, because 2.3 is the next version and to have a
> future we must keep up to date.
"We" here means you and those who follow you to sourceforge (or
wherever),
I assume?
> [...]
> > Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
> > have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
> > 2.3
> > and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
> > supports 2.2/1.1 as well.
>
> And that's not confusing :-)
No. It's the effect of the specifications being backwards compatible,
which is pretty common with specifications; the later version still
supports applications written to the previous version.
> In any case - I discussed about facade23 just to make clear that I
> indeed plan to stick around doing 3.x-related stuff ( besides bug fixes ),
> and to make clear that tomcat 3.x core has a future and will be useful for
> more people, even post servlet 2.2.
This is an example of what I see as creating confusion. You say above
that you will take the code outside Jakarta to implement 2.3 etc. And
then you say here that you will "stick around doing 3.x-related stuff
(besides bug fixes)." I'm sorry, but you lost me again. If you will go
outside Jakarta to continue, it will not be Tomcat 3.3 that "has a
future"
since it will have to be named something else (the Tomcat name is owned
by
ASF). You may start out with the code that today is the HEAD of the
jakarta-tomcat repository (often referred to as 3.3-dev), but if this
code
also gets released as Tomcat 3.3, I'm sure your external code base and
the Jakarta code-base will diverge over time.
Or do you mean that you will continue to contribute to the TC 3.x core
within Jakarta, and only develop the modules externally (under a
different
name)? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I think it's important to
understand
exactly what you have in mind.
> [...]
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
> you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
> believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
> You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
> for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
> and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3
> popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
> where.
Then let me clarify, to avoid the confusion - I don't know yet where (
probably sourceforge or from a homepage ), and I have few ideas about
"how". I said back in November that I am going to start a revolution with
the 2.3 stuff and other features - and I didn't do it because finishing
3.3 refactoring and merging the fixes from 3.2 should happen first, and
it's much higher priority.
Since November I learned a few lessons, so I'll not do a revolution - I
don't think that will give me enough freedom ( and I'll still be at the
mercy of the PMC ). So it'll be outside apache ( consistent with what I
said about minimizing my involvment with apache projects ).
About why - it's simple, because 2.3 is the next version and to have a
future we must keep up to date.
> Maybe. I'm not convinced that you can keep the same core for all
> versions of the specs (who knows what the 2.4, if it happens, will
> hold?), at least not without having to resort to pretty convoluted
> and ineffecient code. But that's besides the point right now.
Well, I'm hoping I'll be able to convince you. The idea is quite simple -
the core is modeled after abstractions found in web servers ( it's trying
to be close to a Java and OO representation of request_rec and all other
server structures - Container==dir_struct, etc). The theory is that as
long as the servlet API will be implementable on top of a web server,
the core will do the job and most modules will be reused without any
change.
For 2.3 it's quite easy, and thanks to ClassLoaders it's also easy to have
both 2.2 and 2.3 ( and 2.0, 2.4 and any other facade ) running on the same
container ( and even instance ). While most people will not care about
that ( and they don't have to - there are just some modules and
configurations ), I think this will be important in quite a few cases and
it'll make a difference.
( of course, the facade has some other inherent advantages - mostly for
performance )
> Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
> have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
> 2.3
> and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
> supports 2.2/1.1 as well.
And that's not confusing :-)
In any case - I discussed about facade23 just to make clear that I
indeed plan to stick around doing 3.x-related stuff ( besides bug fixes ),
and to make clear that tomcat 3.x core has a future and will be useful for
more people, even post servlet 2.2.
> Great. As have been said a few times, you can do that as a revolution
> using a different name than Tomcat within the Jakarta project.
I don't think so - the overhead of the PMC and having to deal with people
like Jon is not worth it - and BTW, as Jon mentioned "revolutions" are
still not "aproved" by the PMC, and are a subject of debate.
So I no longer think a revolution inside jakarta is the right solution.
( and the right to follow your ideas is _not_ a subject of debate - is
more of a fundamental right - if this is not welcomed in jakarta, too
bad for it )
--
Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
> > *not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
> > for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
> > API levels within the same project.
>
> While I disagree with that, I already did what you asked for and removed
> the 23 facade.
Yes, but you seem to create a lot of confusion about how and where
you will implement support for the new APIs eventually. That, I
believe, is one of the main reasons we have the current situation.
You said back in November that you where going to start a revolution
for the 2.3 stuff, as well as other features. But it never happened
and I see hints from you about adding support for the new APIs in 3.3
popping up now and then, without a clear indication about when and
where.
> Tomcat 3.x has been specifically designed to support multiple Servlet
> facades, and that's an important factor and can play an important role in
> deployment stories - people can easily migrate from a version to another
> and gradually convert their applications.
> It is an important feature - that no other container has.
Maybe. I'm not convinced that you can keep the same core for all
versions of the specs (who knows what the 2.4, if it happens, will
hold?), at least not without having to resort to pretty convoluted
and ineffecient code. But that's besides the point right now.
> Because we don't have a rule to name containers that support multiple
> servlet APIs - it doesn't mean we are not allowed to support that.
Well, within the same project it creates a lot of confusion if we
have more than one container the same API level. Besides, the Servlet
2.3
and JSP 1.2 APIs are backwards compatible, so Tomcat 4.0 by definition
supports 2.2/1.1 as well.
> Anyway - a servlet 2.3 implementatio for 3.3 is important to insure it's
> future, and I already said I'm going to work on it. I also said this is
> going to happen on a different repository, and will be released
> independently, so I think that resolves the naming problem.
Great. As have been said a few times, you can do that as a revolution
using a different name than Tomcat within the Jakarta project.
[...]
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> It is so funny, we keep going back and forth over stuff that is clearly
> Costin's FUD. He is attacking me directly with FUD and you are
> believing it.
No it is not. The expression "Jon's rules" just has to do with the way
you push things down other people's throats. And when things don't go the
way you want and you decide to switch a -1 into a +1, you fill the subject
of the e-mail as "Fuck It".
What you call being "very opinative" I call "Jon's rules". For me, opinions
are waves and what you do are tsunamis.
Today (tonight here) I am just taking the time to be as insisting with you
as you usually are with others. (It takes a lot of time huh?) But I think I
am not being nearly as impolite.
What makes me write is not what Costin writes and I got no FUD from him.
What makes me write is what you write and the way you do it.
So, I guess that saying that what makes me talk is "clearly Costin's FUD",
as you just did, ...is clearly FUD.
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:42
>
>
> on 1/15/01 5:41 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cmanolache@yahoo.com [mailto:cmanolache@yahoo.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
> >>
> >
> >> My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
> >> have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking
> to justify
> >> stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm
> alone and
> >> all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
> >>
> >> Costin
>
> How is that "Jon's rules"?
>
> I haven't made an decision for the project one way or another (in fact, if
> anything I gave a +1 for everything which I had previously -1'd...see my
> "Fuck It" email that I previously posted) and as far as "my
> claims", that is
> based on the votes that have already clearly passed.
>
> Let me refer you (yet again) to this url for the reference:
> <http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
>
> So, I'm still confused, how do you translate that into "Jon's rules"????
>
> It is so funny, we keep going back and forth over stuff that is clearly
> Costin's FUD. He is attacking me directly with FUD and you are
> believing it.
> I don't get it. Wake up dude. Look at the facts, not Costin's FUD.
>
> -jon
>
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 5:41 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.
>
> Paulo
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cmanolache@yahoo.com [mailto:cmanolache@yahoo.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
>>
>
>> My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
>> have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
>> stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
>> all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
>>
>> Costin
How is that "Jon's rules"?
I haven't made an decision for the project one way or another (in fact, if
anything I gave a +1 for everything which I had previously -1'd...see my
"Fuck It" email that I previously posted) and as far as "my claims", that is
based on the votes that have already clearly passed.
Let me refer you (yet again) to this url for the reference:
<http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
So, I'm still confused, how do you translate that into "Jon's rules"????
It is so funny, we keep going back and forth over stuff that is clearly
Costin's FUD. He is attacking me directly with FUD and you are believing it.
I don't get it. Wake up dude. Look at the facts, not Costin's FUD.
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Those are the "Jon's rules" I was talking about before.
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cmanolache@yahoo.com [mailto:cmanolache@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 02:30
>
> My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
> have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
> stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
> all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
>
> Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
> *not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
> for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
> API levels within the same project.
While I disagree with that, I already did what you asked for and removed
the 23 facade.
Tomcat 3.x has been specifically designed to support multiple Servlet
facades, and that's an important factor and can play an important role in
deployment stories - people can easily migrate from a version to another
and gradually convert their applications.
It is an important feature - that no other container has.
Because we don't have a rule to name containers that support multiple
servlet APIs - it doesn't mean we are not allowed to support that.
Anyway - a servlet 2.3 implementatio for 3.3 is important to insure it's
future, and I already said I'm going to work on it. I also said this is
going to happen on a different repository, and will be released
independently, so I think that resolves the naming problem.
> The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question
> is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a
> commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. That's pretty much how we got
+1
> from TC 3.1 to TC 3.2. Sam announced his intention to step up as the
> release manager for TC 3.2 and and start cutting milestone releases
> in a mail titled "Towards a 3.2 release" (14 June, 2000). For various
Where he also mentions that "development in the main branch goes on".
> > Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> > proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> > better" ?
>
> Not as "3.x development should stop", but as "development of the
> new APIs will be done based on Catalina while TC 3.x continues to
> be the RI for 2.2/1.1, with bugfixes and enhancements as needed".
Well, at that time the facade23 was already started - but I'm not going
to argue about that, and I stoped any work on it in order to focus on 3.3.
I just want to point that the decision is at least ambigouous in this
issue. ( yet again - it's just a note, not the start of an argument )
> released, so I helped out with a few patches there. For the future, I
> will be more likely to contribute to TC 4.x though, since I will start
> to play around with the new spec versions.
I was hoping to get you involved in the facade23 :-)
( I have few cool ideas for filters, it'll be a lot of fun )
> > Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
>
> Yes, to me it does; it was voted on and got the required +1 votes and
> no -1 votes. That's a "project decision" according to our rules for
> decision making in this project.
My mistake - it is of course a "project decision", the question should
have been - does it looks like the "decision" Jon is invoking to justify
stopping 3.3 ? Does it look like what Jon is claiming that I'm alone and
all other developers have decided for 4.0 ?
Costin
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Thank you very much Hans.
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: hans@servlets.net [mailto:hans@servlets.net]On Behalf Of Hans
> Bergsten
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 03:05
>
>
> Paulo Gaspar wrote:
> >
> > What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1?
>
[...very clear clarification...]
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal
gets a -1
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
Paulo Gaspar wrote:
>
> What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1?
Unless another committer can convince whoever votes -1 to change
his vote, it means that 3.3 will not happen. Instead we will
continue to maintain the 3.x code base based on 3.2.1. That's
how decision making is defined for this project, see
<http://jakarta.apache.org/site/decisions.html>
> >From the whole content of your posting I understand that the 3.3
> existence is legal.
Illegal may be to hard, but no one has formally asked for votes
on its release and there's no release plan and no release manager,
all things that we say we should have according to the rules
above.
> What happens if it is proposed again and gets -1.
Same thing.
> What is the difference from voting to stop it?
I guess someone could ask for a vote to stop it instead of a vote
to release it; the rules above only covers votes for doing something,
not stopping something. But I assume the same decision process applies.
The point is that I feel that decisions about the code base should be
done by the committers on this list rather than PMC.
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info - What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
What happens if a 3.3 proposal gets a -1?
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
> Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
> be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
> project ?
I'm preparing for the meeting tomorrow, so I'm interested in getting
as much input as possible. I've gone through the archives of this list
and read all relevant mails regarding this, so I'll try to give you a
feel for how I see things with regards to what have been decided and
not,
and what we need to decide next.
My reading on the voting on the proposal is that it passed, since there
where more than 3 +1 and no -1; that's all it takes according to the
rules. Any committer had a chance to -1 it but no one did that.
> Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> was still 6 months away from alpha ?
No, the proposal consisted of three points: new CVS repository for
Tomcat 4.0, re-architecting of Jasper for JSP 1.2, and adoption of
Catalina as the code base for Tomcat 4.0.
Since the proposal passed, it means that it was decided by the
committers
in this project that the Catalina code base will be used for
implementation of the Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2 APIs (this is both implied by
the 4.0 version according to the revision rules for Tomcat, and was
explicitly stated in both the proposal mail and the proposal document
referenced by the mail).
As a consequence, I feel that this decision means that Tomcat 3.x can
*not* implement Servlet 2.3/JSP 1.2, since it would be very confusing
for both developers and users with two code bases supporting the same
API levels within the same project.
The motivation for two separate repositories for TC 3.x and 4.x in the
proposal says (among other things) that
"Support and enhancements of the existing Tomcat 3.x can continue
uninterupted, without disruptions caused by development on the
next major version. This is important because many developers
(and server vendors) have adopted Tomcat 3.x (or plan to adopt
Tomcat 3.2 shortly) into their environments, and will need
continued support until they choose to migrate to Tomcat 4.x
at some future date."
So the issue at hand, IMHO, is not TC 3.x *or* TC 4.x for Servlet 2.3
and JSP 1.2; that decision has been made. Besides, the majority of
voices I hear in support of TC 3.3 say they want a better, stable
and supported Servlet 2.2/JSP 1.1 container, not a container that
competes with TC 4.x as a container for the new API versions.
The issue, IMHO, is how to best serve the TC 3.x community; continued
3.2 dot-releases or move to 3.3 (and dot-releases based on 3.3 after
that)? It's not a given, considering the large differences between
3.2 and 3.3 (even if they seem to be for the better).
The way I feel right now is that the best way to answer this question
is by a vote on this list, where all +1 votes for TC 3.3 also means a
commitment to help fix bugs in TC 3.3. That's pretty much how we got
from TC 3.1 to TC 3.2. Sam announced his intention to step up as the
release manager for TC 3.2 and and start cutting milestone releases
in a mail titled "Towards a 3.2 release" (14 June, 2000). For various
reasons the release dragged on for a very long time, and eventually
Craig took on the role as release manager and started to cut betas.
November 27, 2000, Craig asked for a vote on the release of 3.2 and
a plan for continued support of the 3.2.x branch. This vote got the
required +1 and no -1.
So the status right now is that we have a plan for continued support
of 3.2.x, with an appointed release manager, but we do not have a
proposal for releasing 3.3. Please do not make such a proposal before
the meeting ;-) I believe it's the right thing to do, but I want to
discuss it with the other PMC members first.
> Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> better" ?
Not as "3.x development should stop", but as "development of the
new APIs will be done based on Catalina while TC 3.x continues to
be the RI for 2.2/1.1, with bugfixes and enhancements as needed".
> How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
> tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
> that tomcat3.3 supports valves ).
>
> How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
> simpler, better or faster ?
At the time, I did a quick review of TC 3.x and TC 4.x and found 4.x
to be the code base I believe in for the future. I still feel the same
way.
> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
I don't have much time to spend on active development, so all I do
is "scratch my itches" now and then (and monitor the list to make sure
we stick to the specs). My biggest itch so far has been to get 3.2
released, so I helped out with a few patches there. For the future, I
will be more likely to contribute to TC 4.x though, since I will start
to play around with the new spec versions.
> Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
Yes, to me it does; it was voted on and got the required +1 votes and
no -1 votes. That's a "project decision" according to our rules for
decision making in this project.
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
Talk about rudeness!
=:o)
I have seen that posting with the +1 votes before.
Does it erase what followed?
Have fun,
Paulo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:30
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 4:24 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see
> making a big
> > fuss of stopping it its you.
>
> I don't know what the *fuck* you are talking about.
>
> -jon
>
> > ----------
> > From: Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>
> > Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> > Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:38:11 -0800
> > To: tomcat-dev <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> > Subject: Fuck It.
> >
> > To: Costin and the rest of you who commented.
> >
> > You obviously know what is best and have shown me that I simply
> have my head
> > up my ass and I'm just a complete jerk and I should stop now
> and just let
> > you do whatever you want.
> >
> > I give up. All of my previous -1 votes are now +1.
> >
> > Have fun.
> >
> > -jon
>
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 4:24 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see making a big
> fuss of stopping it its you.
I don't know what the *fuck* you are talking about.
-jon
> ----------
> From: Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>
> Reply-To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:38:11 -0800
> To: tomcat-dev <to...@jakarta.apache.org>
> Subject: Fuck It.
>
> To: Costin and the rest of you who commented.
>
> You obviously know what is best and have shown me that I simply have my head
> up my ass and I'm just a complete jerk and I should stop now and just let
> you do whatever you want.
>
> I give up. All of my previous -1 votes are now +1.
>
> Have fun.
>
> -jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 00:49
>
>
> on 1/15/01 3:05 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Yes, it was about moving catalina in a separate CVS and implementing
> > servlet 2.3 and calling it tomcat 4.0. Not about replacing 3.x
> or droping
> > development.
>
> Right.
I am glad you agree on that.
> > ( but created the confusion about 2 completely different codebases with
> > the same name, and then for claims that Servlet2.3 support isn't allowed
> > for 3.x because it's confusing - since 4.0 has the same name )
>
> No, at the time, we didn't have a concrete plan as to what Tomcat
> 3.x would
> become. You have done all your re-factoring work towards making
> 3.x able to
> support 2.3 without making any proposals to the list as far as I can tell.
> You just went and did it.
Isn't your motto "If you have an itch scratch it" any more?
How bureaucratic is the process of making improvements one wishes after all?
> > Because Craig complained to my manager, and she asked me to refrain from
> > some posting. Which turned to be a great thing - since arguing about the
> > technical mistakes in Catalina's design was driving attention
> and interest
> > to it.
>
> So, the truth finally comes out. You decided not to vote because
> of your own
> political pressures within your own corporation. Hmmmmmmm...what does that
> say?
Careful there Jon. His corporation interests seem to agree a lot with you.
Any link?
At least Costin has been following his own path despite those pressures.
> > Yes, spending all the time contributing to tomcat - just to be
> trashed and
> > flamed by "community members" like you.
>
> Writing code is one thing.
>
> Acting as part of the project community and direction is another.
And code doesn't talk so loud anymore. Is that what you mean?
And what defines the community will?
Several members want to go on with 3.3 and the only one I see making a big
fuss of stopping it its you.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 3:05 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
>>> merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
>>> whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
>>> potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
>>> required. Once all issues have been taken care of and the merge is
>>> approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
>>
>> One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
>> the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.
>
> Ah, so it was ok for starting catalina, and a large number of _commiters_
> voted on it
No. The commiters voted on the proposals that Craig sent to the list.
> - but it's not valid until the PMC adopts it ?
Correct.
> Yes, it was about moving catalina in a separate CVS and implementing
> servlet 2.3 and calling it tomcat 4.0. Not about replacing 3.x or droping
> development.
Right.
> And as the time has proven, calling it 4.0 didn't get more people
> involved.
Does it matter?
> ( but created the confusion about 2 completely different codebases with
> the same name, and then for claims that Servlet2.3 support isn't allowed
> for 3.x because it's confusing - since 4.0 has the same name )
No, at the time, we didn't have a concrete plan as to what Tomcat 3.x would
become. You have done all your re-factoring work towards making 3.x able to
support 2.3 without making any proposals to the list as far as I can tell.
You just went and did it.
> But that's still far away from what you claim to be ( or make it sound
> like ) the overwhealming majority of commiters deciding to drop 3.x and
> move to 4.0. In fact the commit history shows pretty much that following
> that decision nothing change - the same people continued to work on 4.0.
6 people voted +1. How many more does it take?
> Because Craig complained to my manager, and she asked me to refrain from
> some posting. Which turned to be a great thing - since arguing about the
> technical mistakes in Catalina's design was driving attention and interest
> to it.
So, the truth finally comes out. You decided not to vote because of your own
political pressures within your own corporation. Hmmmmmmm...what does that
say?
> Since the proposal didn't brough anything new ( Craig was calling it .next
> from the beginning, and moving it out in a separate tree was not my
> problem ) and since it didn't sparked any interest I choosed to ignore it
> - the even wanted to sent a +0 ( == do whatever you want with 4.0,
> let me know when you are done so we can check the claims you make ), but
> I didn't thought it's worth it.
However, it is now proving that it was worth voting on.
> Oh, no - more an oligarchy.
How so?
>>> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
>>> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything?
>
> you claim that the project decision was to move into 4.0 direction, and
> this proposal is exactly that and the commiters aproved that - well, then
> what happened ?
I repeat:
What does that have to do with anything?
> Yes, spending all the time contributing to tomcat - just to be trashed and
> flamed by "community members" like you.
Writing code is one thing.
Acting as part of the project community and direction is another.
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> > 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
> > merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
> > whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
> > potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
> > required. Once all issues have been taken care of and the merge is
> > approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
>
> One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
> the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.
Ah, so it was ok for starting catalina, and a large number of _commiters_
voted on it - but it's not valid until the PMC adopts it ?
So what you don't like has to be voted by the PMC :-) ?
> > Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
> > for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
> > Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next").
>
> It was a proposal on what to do next. Which is what this discussion is all
> about.
Yes, it was about moving catalina in a separate CVS and implementing
servlet 2.3 and calling it tomcat 4.0. Not about replacing 3.x or droping
development.
And as the time has proven, calling it 4.0 didn't get more people
involved.
( but created the confusion about 2 completely different codebases with
the same name, and then for claims that Servlet2.3 support isn't allowed
for 3.x because it's confusing - since 4.0 has the same name )
> >> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
> >> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
> >
> > Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
> > voted +1 are Duncan and Hans.
>
> So what? According to the rules, it takes 3 +1 votes and zero -1 votes.
But that's still far away from what you claim to be ( or make it sound
like ) the overwhealming majority of commiters deciding to drop 3.x and
move to 4.0. In fact the commit history shows pretty much that following
that decision nothing change - the same people continued to work on 4.0.
> Tell me Costin, why didn't YOU vote?
Because Craig complained to my manager, and she asked me to refrain from
some posting. Which turned to be a great thing - since arguing about the
technical mistakes in Catalina's design was driving attention and interest
to it.
Since the proposal didn't brough anything new ( Craig was calling it .next
from the beginning, and moving it out in a separate tree was not my
problem ) and since it didn't sparked any interest I choosed to ignore it
- the even wanted to sent a +0 ( == do whatever you want with 4.0,
let me know when you are done so we can check the claims you make ), but
I didn't thought it's worth it.
> I'm stating that, according to the rules, the proposal received enough +1
> votes and zero -1 votes and that does indeed make it valid.
>
> This isn't a democracy based on popular vote.
Oh, no - more an oligarchy.
> > Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> > was still 6 months away from alpha ?
>
> Nope. I didn't say that.
Then why do you point us to that proposal ?
> > Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> > proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> > better" ?
>
> Nope. I don't.
>
> But, if you phrase your question according to what the proposal was
> suggesting in the first place, I would agree with it.
How convenient - well, maybe a lawyer would make sense. ( I can't resist
repeating that in this case the judge is also representing a side - so
probably a lawyer won't help )
> > And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> > 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
>
> What does that have to do with anything?
you claim that the project decision was to move into 4.0 direction, and
this proposal is exactly that and the commiters aproved that - well, then
what happened ?
> > Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far.
>
> Right. Because you haven't been acting like part of the community.
Yes, spending all the time contributing to tomcat - just to be trashed and
flamed by "community members" like you.
--
Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 2:15 PM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
>> direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
>>
>> Let me refer you to this link (again):
>>
>> <http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
>
> You can also try reading:
>
> http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
>
> To quote:
>
> 2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
> merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
> whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
> potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
> required. Once all issues have been taken care of and the merge is
> approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
One of the agenda items for the meeting will be to discuss whether or not
the Jakarta PMC adopts this document. So far, it isn't officially adopted.
> Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
> for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
> Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next").
It was a proposal on what to do next. Which is what this discussion is all
about.
> Was the discussion that followed "the community evaluating whether or not
> the code is ready to become part of ..." ?
Huh?
>> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
>> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
>
> Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
> voted +1 are Duncan and Hans.
So what? According to the rules, it takes 3 +1 votes and zero -1 votes.
Tell me Costin, why didn't YOU vote?
Please answer this as I have yet to see you state your reasons in public and
I would just love you to air your reasons.
> Also Alex, who withdrawled his -1 saying ( if you read his mail ):
>
> " True enough; my point was simply that people who want 2.3, but don't
> want to change to Catalina, won't have to (since Tomcat 3.x will
> support the latest and greatest specs too)"
>
> Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
> be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
> project ?
I'm stating that, according to the rules, the proposal received enough +1
votes and zero -1 votes and that does indeed make it valid.
This isn't a democracy based on popular vote.
> Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
> was still 6 months away from alpha ?
Nope. I didn't say that.
> Since that didn't looked like " Catalina is ready, we have facts to show,
> not only words " - no, I didn't, and it seems at that time very few people
> were interpreting that proposal the way you imply now. I din't - it was
> just a repetition of what happened in December 99 - and calling it
> ".next" didn't worked too much then, the same for calling it "4.0" now.
>
> Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
> proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
> better" ?
Nope. I don't.
But, if you phrase your question according to what the proposal was
suggesting in the first place, I would agree with it.
> How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
> tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
> that tomcat3.3 supports valves ).
What does that have to do with anything?
> How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
> simpler, better or faster ?
I do.
> And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
> 3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
What does that have to do with anything?
> Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
Yes. There were no -1 votes and more than 3 +1 votes.
> Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far.
>
> Costin
Right. Because you haven't been acting like part of the community.
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
> direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
>
> Let me refer you to this link (again):
>
> <http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
You can also try reading:
http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
To quote:
2) When a revolution is ready for prime time, the committer proposes a
merge to the -dev list. At that time, the overall community evaluates
whether or not the code is ready to become part of, or to
potentially replace the, trunk. Suggestions may be made, changes may be
required. Once all issues have been taken care of and the merge is
approved, the new code becomes the trunk.
Is the mail you are pointing on the announcement that Catalina is "ready
for prime time" ? It looks like a repetition of the original proposal that
Craig submited one year ago ( i.e. "Tomcat.Next").
Was the discussion that followed "the community evaluating whether or not
the code is ready to become part of ..." ?
> Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
> the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
Besides the people who were working on Tomcat4, the only commiters that
voted +1 are Duncan and Hans.
Also Alex, who withdrawled his -1 saying ( if you read his mail ):
" True enough; my point was simply that people who want 2.3, but don't
want to change to Catalina, won't have to (since Tomcat 3.x will
support the latest and greatest specs too)"
Are you saying that a proposal that got 6 commiter votes ( which happen to
be the full PMC, except Sam, plus Remy ) are representing the whole
project ?
Are you saying that the proposal meant to replace 3.x with 4.0 ? When 4.0
was still 6 months away from alpha ?
> because I don't see that as being right. I also don't see a problem with
> questioning the fact that he has completely ignored what we have voted on
> (to the point where he didn't even vote himself!). I don't understand how
Since that didn't looked like " Catalina is ready, we have facts to show,
not only words " - no, I didn't, and it seems at that time very few people
were interpreting that proposal the way you imply now. I din't - it was
just a repetition of what happened in December 99 - and calling it
".next" didn't worked too much then, the same for calling it "4.0" now.
Quick poll - how many of you ( who voted or not at that time ) read the
proposal as "3.x development should stop, Catalina has proven to be
better" ?
How many of you can name the fundamental differences between
tomcat3 and catalina and explain why one choice is better ( not to mention
that tomcat3.3 supports valves ).
How many spent time reading 4.0 and 3.3 and believe that 4.0 is indeed
simpler, better or faster ?
And how many commiters ( including Hans and Duncan ) did stoped working on
3.x and started working on 4.0 ?
Does it looks like a "project decision" ?
> you all can accept Costin's lone wolf mentality when this is supposed to
> really be a community effort.
Yes, this is supposed to be a community effort - and it has been so far.
Costin
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 12:56 PM, "Kief Morris" <ki...@bitbull.com> wrote:
> I think that's _your_ reason for thinking he should go. I get the impression
> his own reasons for saying he wants to go has a lot more to do with the
> pressure he's getting to either conform to the party line or get lost. What
> you say above reads to me as "if he decides to leave it's his own fault for
> not conforming, it's not my fault for constantly pressuring him to conform".
No. What I am saying is that as a group, we choose to go in a certain
direction and voted on it (with zero -1's).
Let me refer you to this link (again):
<http://w6.metronet.com/~wjm/tomcat/2000/Aug/index.html#00195>
Now, he wants to go against what everyone voted for by continuing on with
the development of Tomcat 3.x indefinitely. I'm going to call him on that
because I don't see that as being right. I also don't see a problem with
questioning the fact that he has completely ignored what we have voted on
(to the point where he didn't even vote himself!). I don't understand how
you all can accept Costin's lone wolf mentality when this is supposed to
really be a community effort.
My question that I'm going to bring up at the PMC meeting is:
Where does it stop? If we release 3.3 and there are bugs in it, do we then
release 3.3.1...3.3.2...3.3.3...3.4...etc...or do we call it quits on that
tree and focus on 4.0?
Costin has already stated that he is going to disappear. I have yet to see a
real solid answer on *when* he is going to disappear, but that probably
primarily depends on whether or not there will be a 3.3 release from the
Jakarta Project (as decided by the PMC).
If he decides to disappear after 3.3 is released (which is what he has
currently stated he will do), then I would be very against making a 3.3
release within the Jakarta project as the primary developer is not going to
be around to support it. I would much rather see the 3.3 release happen in
the forum that he is going to be support it under as that will be better for
the community.
Heck, today, anyone could go to sourceforge and do their own release of the
software and call it FooBar 3.3. Same exact code. What is the real
difference?
> I don't really see that everyone needs to be marching in lock step, and I
> don't see the need to bully people who aren't toeing the party line. Tomcat
> 4 isn't ready yet, does everyone still loyal to the old 3.x order really need
> to be purged?
Please follow along more closely. That isn't the issue.
thanks,
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Kief Morris <ki...@bitbull.com>.
Jon Stevens typed the following on 12:36 PM 1/15/2001 -0800
>Costin's choice is his choice. If he doesn't want to stick around, it won't
>be because of me (or at least I don't think I can understand that as an
>argument...maybe my fault, maybe not), it will be because of the fact that
>the project has decided to go in one direction and he wants to go in
>another.
I think that's _your_ reason for thinking he should go. I get the impression
his own reasons for saying he wants to go has a lot more to do with the
pressure he's getting to either conform to the party line or get lost. What
you say above reads to me as "if he decides to leave it's his own fault for
not conforming, it's not my fault for constantly pressuring him to conform".
I don't really see that everyone needs to be marching in lock step, and I
don't see the need to bully people who aren't toeing the party line. Tomcat
4 isn't ready yet, does everyone still loyal to the old 3.x order really need
to be purged?
Kief
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
And you are being the usual pain too.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 21:37
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
>
>
> on 1/15/01 12:17 PM, "Kief Morris" <ki...@bitbull.com> wrote:
>
> > If you're *really* concerned about Costin wanting to disappear,
> why don't
> > you lighten up a bit? I wouldn't want to hang around either if
> I got half as
> > much harassment as Costin does.
> >
> > Kief
>
> I'm being open.
> I'm being honest.
> I'm being truthful.
>
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 12:17 PM, "Kief Morris" <ki...@bitbull.com> wrote:
> If you're *really* concerned about Costin wanting to disappear, why don't
> you lighten up a bit? I wouldn't want to hang around either if I got half as
> much harassment as Costin does.
>
> Kief
I'm being open.
I'm being honest.
I'm being truthful.
Costin's choice is his choice. If he doesn't want to stick around, it won't
be because of me (or at least I don't think I can understand that as an
argument...maybe my fault, maybe not), it will be because of the fact that
the project has decided to go in one direction and he wants to go in
another.
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Kief Morris <ki...@bitbull.com>.
Jon Stevens typed the following on 11:50 AM 1/15/2001 -0800
>Right, but I (and others) are still here and myself (and others) are still
>in a responsible position for supporting this software. Therefore, I'm most
>concerned with a developer who makes a huge number of changes and then
>announces that he is going to disappear.
If you're *really* concerned about Costin wanting to disappear, why don't
you lighten up a bit? I wouldn't want to hang around either if I got half as
much harassment as Costin does.
Kief
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 01:12
>
> on 1/15/01 4:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > * Or are we supposed to only scratch the itches you approve?
>
> That is a fucked up question. I'm not being a dictator at all and
> I think it
> is rude of you to suggest that I am being one. I'm simply going with what
> the active developers have proposed and voted and agreed on.
1. You already ignored the remarks of several active developers in the
process;
2. You sure make a lot of pressure to make things go your way;
3. It is amazing how you can still be so sensitive about rudness.
> > Or is Apache effort now only ruled for what is better for Sun's
> > interests? (Like having a 2.3 container real soon.)
>
> I don't understand what your point is here. Please clarify.
Just trying to find the logic of it. And I am not the first one, am I?
Paulo
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 4:13 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Your favorite answer when a better one is missing.
No. I don't have time to answer things that clearly aren't relevant.
> But I thing this is the question.
>
> * Isn't Open Source Software community driven?
Depends on how you define community. If you think of community as simply
being the users, I would say "probably not". If you think of community being
the developers, I would say "definitely so". Since day one, the ASF (not
Open Source), but the foundation has been driven by what developers want,
not what users want. This is clearly evident in the voting process as well.
> * Isn't 3.3 being wanted because of being better at least for the short
> term the reason why some members of the community want it?
I would say that is the reason why people who have spoken up want it.
However, whether or not releasing it is a good thing in the long term is
what I'm concerned with because I'm one of the people who is stuck
supporting it.
> * Or are we supposed to only scratch the itches you approve?
That is a fucked up question. I'm not being a dictator at all and I think it
is rude of you to suggest that I am being one. I'm simply going with what
the active developers have proposed and voted and agreed on.
> Or is Apache effort now only ruled for what is better for Sun's
> interests? (Like having a 2.3 container real soon.)
I don't understand what your point is here. Please clarify.
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> Like I said. That isn't what is being questioned.
Your favorite answer when a better one is missing.
But I thing this is the question.
* Isn't Open Source Software community driven?
* Isn't 3.3 being wanted because of being better at least for the short
term the reason why some members of the community want it?
* Or are we supposed to only scratch the itches you approve?
Or is Apache effort now only ruled for what is better for Sun's
interests? (Like having a 2.3 container real soon.)
If it is so, please make it clear.
Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 00:41
>
> on 1/15/01 3:08 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > Can you please give me concrete evidence against?
> >
> > Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.
> >
> > Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
> > wrong?
>
> Like I said. That isn't what is being questioned.
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 3:08 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Can you please give me concrete evidence against?
>
> Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.
>
> Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
> wrong?
Like I said. That isn't what is being questioned.
> It seems he is not alone on that.
>
> Paulo
That is why the issue is being brought up to the PMC level to decide.
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 23:34
>
> on 1/15/01 2:25 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another
> release that is
> > easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And
> that seems to
> > be the case with Costin and 3.3.
>
> Can you please give me concrete evidence that supports that claim?
Can you please give me concrete evidence against?
Beacuase you are the one against the flow on that one.
Everybody that knows both says 3.3 is better than 3.2. Are they all
wrong?
> > Still, it seems that you just want him to go away NOW. Does
> that make sense?
>
> Nope. I simply want him to play within the goals of the overall project
> according to the way that we voted and agreed upon. He is still continuing
> to choose to not do that.
It seems he is not alone on that.
Paulo
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 2:25 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <pa...@krankikom.de> wrote:
> Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another release that is
> easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And that seems to
> be the case with Costin and 3.3.
Can you please give me concrete evidence that supports that claim?
> Still, it seems that you just want him to go away NOW. Does that make sense?
Nope. I simply want him to play within the goals of the overall project
according to the way that we voted and agreed upon. He is still continuing
to choose to not do that.
-jon
RE: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Paulo Gaspar <pa...@krankikom.de>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Stevens [mailto:jon@latchkey.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 20:50
>
> on 1/15/01 9:52 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Again - 3.x is the only reason I'm still here, and I want to
> finish it as
> > soon as possible and be free.
>
> In case you missed it, no software is *ever* "done". If you think you can
> just do another release and then stop all work on it, then as a volunteer,
> that is fine, but as one of the primary core developers, that isn't
> acceptable. You have a responsibility and you need to either stick with it
> or stop pushing for what you are pushing for.
Actually, it is much more responsible to push for another release that is
easier to maintain by others than just leave it as it is. And that seems to
be the case with Costin and 3.3.
Still, it seems that you just want him to go away NOW. Does that make sense?
Besides, he is the main committer and not the only one.
And then, as you usual highlight, he is a volunteer!
Have fun,
Paulo
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 9:52 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Again - 3.x is the only reason I'm still here, and I want to finish it as
> soon as possible and be free.
In case you missed it, no software is *ever* "done". If you think you can
just do another release and then stop all work on it, then as a volunteer,
that is fine, but as one of the primary core developers, that isn't
acceptable. You have a responsibility and you need to either stick with it
or stop pushing for what you are pushing for.
> If it is done right, it'll be possible to add features ( with a Servlet2.3
> facade as the most important one ) independently - and I'll probably spend
> the time doing that - but without going through this nightmare.
You could do that without a release.
>> more structured, more comments, performance improvements, etc. But it's
>> a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there
>> are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do
>
> Mea culpa for the bugs, but most of the changes were just moving code
> around and improving the interface between modules.
He isn't blaming you for the bugs, he is wonder who is going to fix them and
be responsible for the additional releases in the future!
> I have a good percent of the 3.2 commits also - and the architecture is as
> different as 3.2 is from 3.1. As we all know, 3.0 was quite ugly, yet we
> were able to get quite a few people involved ( even if .next was around
> claiming to be the coolest thing ).
>
> And remember that none of the original authors of tomcat are around or
> active - including the one who designed it.
Right, but I (and others) are still here and myself (and others) are still
in a responsible position for supporting this software. Therefore, I'm most
concerned with a developer who makes a huge number of changes and then
announces that he is going to disappear.
> And as I said, I'll not be that far away - I plan to add new modules and
> features, port back some valves, improve modules - I just don't want to
> have to fight every step of the way or get back what I've got so far.
I still don't think you "get it".
-jon
--
Honk if you love peace and quiet.
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
> > Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
> >
> > I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
> > up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
>
> As far as I can recall, you been saying that, but you have also
> said you would stay and help maintain the 3.x code base. It's hard
> to tell what your intentions are when you keep switching back and
> forth.
Again - 3.x is the only reason I'm still here, and I want to finish it as
soon as possible and be free.
If it is done right, it'll be possible to add features ( with a Servlet2.3
facade as the most important one ) independently - and I'll probably spend
the time doing that - but without going through this nightmare.
> if we release the current HEAD as the next 3.x version, as opposed to
> continue to do bugfixes based on 3.2.1. From what I've seen so far, all
Maybe the same as releasing 3.2 instead of doing bugfixes for 3.1 ?
After all the same process was used, and 3.2 is just an intermediary step.
> more structured, more comments, performance improvements, etc. But it's
> a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there
> are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do
Mea culpa for the bugs, but most of the changes were just moving code
around and improving the interface between modules.
> major refactoring). This means that we need active committers that
> understand the new architecture if we are going to make it the next
> 3.x. You can try to downplay your role in this as much as you like; the
> fact remains that 90% (or more) of all commits on this version have
> your name on them.
I have a good percent of the 3.2 commits also - and the architecture is as
different as 3.2 is from 3.1. As we all know, 3.0 was quite ugly, yet we
were able to get quite a few people involved ( even if .next was around
claiming to be the coolest thing ).
And remember that none of the original authors of tomcat are around or
active - including the one who designed it.
And as I said, I'll not be that far away - I plan to add new modules and
features, port back some valves, improve modules - I just don't want to
have to fight every step of the way or get back what I've got so far.
> I take offense at this. You make it sound as if the meeting is just
> for show. That's absolutely not the case. And as Jon said, all important
> discussions about this have taken place in the open on this list;
Costin
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Hans Bergsten <ha...@gefionsoftware.com>.
cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
>
> I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
> up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
As far as I can recall, you been saying that, but you have also
said you would stay and help maintain the 3.x code base. It's hard
to tell what your intentions are when you keep switching back and
forth.
I'm spending this weekend to go through a lot of the discussions
about this issue, compare the 3.2.1 code to the HEAD of the
jakarta-tomcat
repository, look at the CVS commit messages, and in general trying to
form an opinion about what I feel is best for the project.
One of the most important things I'm trying to get a grip on is what
the pros and cons are for the "community" (both developers and users)
if we release the current HEAD as the next 3.x version, as opposed to
continue to do bugfixes based on 3.2.1. From what I've seen so far, all
the work you and others have done since 3.2 seems to be for the better;
more structured, more comments, performance improvements, etc. But it's
a *lot* of changes, and from my limited testing it's clear that there
are new bugs introduced (no surprise, that's what happens when you do
major refactoring). This means that we need active committers that
understand the new architecture if we are going to make it the next
3.x. You can try to downplay your role in this as much as you like; the
fact remains that 90% (or more) of all commits on this version have
your name on them. So when you now say that you give up, you're making
it much harder for me to consider a 3.x based on the HEAD code. Chances
are that if you leave, the three or four other committers that have been
actively working on the refactoring with you will go with you. In that
scenario it's probably better for the community to continue the 3.x
branch based on 3.2, since it's been battle tested and therefore is
likely to have fewer bugs and it's compatible with the modifications
and additions users have done privately.
Note that I have not made up my mind on this yet, and your actions
here play a huge role in how I will argue at the meeting.
> [...]
> I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good - I
> think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the
> games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive
> closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a
> lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude
> during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out
> of this project as soon as possible.
I take offense at this. You make it sound as if the meeting is just
for show. That's absolutely not the case. And as Jon said, all important
discussions about this have taken place in the open on this list;
there's
no conspiracy here!
I'm in favor of giving anyone read access to the PMC list if that
will improve the feeling that decisions like this are being made
behind closed doors, and I will make a motion that we add a
discussion about this to the agenda for the meeting. But for those
who really want to believe that there's a conspiracy, I'm not sure
anything helps ...
Again I can only reiterate what Jon has said in a couple of mails;
very little is being decided and done by the PMC (maybe too little).
We are all volunteers with busy schedules. It's on the developers list
the action is. PMC basically just approves new subprojects and, for
the first time ever in the upcoming meeting, resolves major issues
when it's clear that they can't be resolved on the developers list.
> [...]
Hans
--
Hans Bergsten hans@gefionsoftware.com
Gefion Software http://www.gefionsoftware.com
Author of JavaServer Pages (O'Reilly), http://TheJSPBook.com
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>.
At 12:10 15/1/01 -0800, Jon Stevens wrote:
>Actually NOTHING has been debated OR decided on any of the closed lists. I
>wonder how many times I (and others) need to repeat that to you before you
>actually hear and acknowledge it.
every time it arises or there is conflict - thats the joy of closed lists
;)
;)
Cheers,
Pete
*------------------------------------------------------*
| "Computers are useless. They can only give you |
| answers." - Pablo Picasso |
*------------------------------------------------------*
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 12:02 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
>
> I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
> up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
>
> The only thing that keeps me subscribed to this list is the fact that I
> wanted to finish my work on tomcat3 - quite a few people put a lot of
> their time and effort into it, and I'll do whatever I can to make sure
> their work is not lost.
How would it be lost? It is in CVS and archived on literally hundreds of
people's desktops. I also heard you say previously that you were going to
continue things elsewhere. Therefore, what exactly would be lost?
> I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good
> - I
> think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the
> games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive
> closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a
> lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude
> during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out
> of this project as soon as possible.
Actually NOTHING has been debated OR decided on any of the closed lists. I
wonder how many times I (and others) need to repeat that to you before you
actually hear and acknowledge it.
> In any case, the only thing I can do is to make clear that I ( as still
> a commiter on this project ) believe that tomcat 3.3 is to tomcat 3.2 what
> 3.2 is to 3.1 - a step forward and an evolution in the right direction.
Uh. That point was never in contention.
> If you want to help - do the same, write to the list stating your opinion
> ( and don't answer to any flame ). Or write to any PMC member you like,
> and please mention the reasons for not writing to the list. A +1 is enough
> if you don't want to add more.
Yes, I agree! I also encourage all of you to start expressing your opinions.
If more people would step up and contribute here in one way or another this
would be a much better place.
> I'm very happy with the way our evolution worked. The fact that so many
> people contributed so much ( Gal, Sam, Larry, Nacho, Alex, Glen, Henri,
> Dan - and everyone else ) is what makes tomcat 3.x a great
> success. And again, tomcat 3.3 is not my baby - all I did was to clean up
> and move code around trying to learn from Apache2.0 and others. The
> original design is the main value, and almost all features have been
> implemented by other people.
As the person who probably did the most number of commits and
co-restructuring, I would consider you the lead developer on Tomcat 3.x.
Please stop trying to downplay your importance. Yes, others were very
important, but I think it was you who really stepped up and did the core
work that needed to be done to bring Tomcat 3.x up to par with what you
consider as being needed done.
> I'm waiting for the moment they feel Catalina is completed and has
> all the promised features and it's ready to be compared with Tomcat 3.
So am I!
I personally think that Tomcat 4.0b1 is very close with regards to being a
usable Servlet Container. I'm certainly much happier using it than I was
with Tomcat 3.x.
thanks,
-jon
Re: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by Jon Stevens <jo...@latchkey.com>.
on 1/15/01 12:02 AM, "cmanolache@yahoo.com" <cm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
>
> I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
> up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
>
> The only thing that keeps me subscribed to this list is the fact that I
> wanted to finish my work on tomcat3 - quite a few people put a lot of
> their time and effort into it, and I'll do whatever I can to make sure
> their work is not lost.
How would it be lost? It is in CVS and archived on literally hundreds of
people's desktops. I also heard you say previously that you were going to
continue things elsewhere. Therefore, what exactly would be lost?
> I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good
> - I
> think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the
> games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive
> closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a
> lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude
> during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out
> of this project as soon as possible.
Actually NOTHING has been debated OR decided on any of the closed lists. I
wonder how many times I (and others) need to repeat that to you before you
actually hear and acknowledge it.
> In any case, the only thing I can do is to make clear that I ( as still
> a commiter on this project ) believe that tomcat 3.3 is to tomcat 3.2 what
> 3.2 is to 3.1 - a step forward and an evolution in the right direction.
Uh. That point was never in contention.
> If you want to help - do the same, write to the list stating your opinion
> ( and don't answer to any flame ). Or write to any PMC member you like,
> and please mention the reasons for not writing to the list. A +1 is enough
> if you don't want to add more.
Yes, I agree! I also encourage all of you to start expressing your opinions.
If more people would step up and contribute here in one way or another this
would be a much better place.
> I'm very happy with the way our evolution worked. The fact that so many
> people contributed so much ( Gal, Sam, Larry, Nacho, Alex, Glen, Henri,
> Dan - and everyone else ) is what makes tomcat 3.x a great
> success. And again, tomcat 3.3 is not my baby - all I did was to clean up
> and move code around trying to learn from Apache2.0 and others. The
> original design is the main value, and almost all features have been
> implemented by other people.
As the person who probably did the most number of commits and
co-restructuring, I would consider you the lead developer on Tomcat 3.x.
Please stop trying to downplay your importance. Yes, others were very
important, but I think it was you who really stepped up and did the core
work that needed to be done to bring Tomcat 3.x up to par with what you
consider as being needed done.
> I'm waiting for the moment they feel Catalina is completed and has
> all the promised features and it's ready to be compared with Tomcat 3.
So am I!
I personally think that Tomcat 4.0b1 is very close with regards to being a
usable Servlet Container. I'm certainly much happier using it than I was
with Tomcat 3.x.
thanks,
-jon
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
The only thing that keeps me subscribed to this list is the fact that I
wanted to finish my work on tomcat3 - quite a few people put a lot of
their time and effort into it, and I'll do whatever I can to make sure
their work is not lost.
I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good - I
think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the
games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive
closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a
lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude
during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out
of this project as soon as possible.
In any case, the only thing I can do is to make clear that I ( as still
a commiter on this project ) believe that tomcat 3.3 is to tomcat 3.2 what
3.2 is to 3.1 - a step forward and an evolution in the right direction.
If you want to help - do the same, write to the list stating your opinion
( and don't answer to any flame ). Or write to any PMC member you like,
and please mention the reasons for not writing to the list. A +1 is enough
if you don't want to add more.
I'm very happy with the way our evolution worked. The fact that so many
people contributed so much ( Gal, Sam, Larry, Nacho, Alex, Glen, Henri,
Dan - and everyone else ) is what makes tomcat 3.x a great
success. And again, tomcat 3.3 is not my baby - all I did was to clean up
and move code around trying to learn from Apache2.0 and others. The
original design is the main value, and almost all features have been
implemented by other people.
I'm waiting for the moment they feel Catalina is completed and has
all the promised features and it's ready to be compared with Tomcat 3.
--
Costin
P.S.
I'll try to call in, if a line is available - and I would love to meet
those of you in Bay Area, but I'm afraid my presence to the meeting will
give them a chance to turn things into a personal thing ( I'm the villain,
and as a consequence tc3.3 is bad ) - and I don't want to distract
the attention from more important issues. BTW, 3.3 is the least important
issue in this meeting - the code exists and no meeting can change that.
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
Well, I think I have to clear few things up.
I already announced ( probably not clearly enough ) my intention to give
up and spend my free time in better ways. This is a form of vote, BTW.
The only thing that keeps me subscribed to this list is the fact that I
wanted to finish my work on tomcat3 - quite a few people put a lot of
their time and effort into it, and I'll do whatever I can to make sure
their work is not lost.
I don't think my presence to the PMC meeting can bring anything good - I
think most of the decisions have already been taken, and most of the
games done. It seems things have already been debated in productive
closed-lists, and 1/2 of the judges are representing one side. I have a
lot of respect for the other 1/2, but their (lack of ) open attitude
during recent months is one of the main reasons for me wanting to get out
of this project as soon as possible.
In any case, the only thing I can do is to make clear that I ( as still
a commiter on this project ) believe that tomcat 3.3 is to tomcat 3.2 what
3.2 is to 3.1 - a step forward and an evolution in the right direction.
If you want to help - do the same, write to the list stating your opinion
( and don't answer to any flame ). Or write to any PMC member you like,
and please mention the reasons for not writing to the list. A +1 is enough
if you don't want to add more.
I'm very happy with the way our evolution worked. The fact that so many
people contributed so much ( Gal, Sam, Larry, Nacho, Alex, Glen, Henri,
Dan - and everyone else ) is what makes tomcat 3.x a great
success. And again, tomcat 3.3 is not my baby - all I did was to clean up
and move code around trying to learn from Apache2.0 and others. The
original design is the main value, and almost all features have been
implemented by other people.
I'm waiting for the moment they feel Catalina is completed and has
all the promised features and it's ready to be compared with Tomcat 3.
--
Costin
P.S.
I'll try to call in, if a line is available - and I would love to meet
those of you in Bay Area, but I'm afraid my presence to the meeting will
give them a chance to turn things into a personal thing ( I'm the villain,
and as a consequence tc3.3 is bad ) - and I don't want to distract
the attention from more important issues. BTW, 3.3 is the least important
issue in this meeting - the code exists and no meeting can change that.
Re: FW: Jakarta PMC Meeting Agenda / Info
Posted by cm...@yahoo.com.
>*) Tomcat 3.x vs. Tomcat 4.x. We will be reaching a final decision
> about the future of the Tomcat source base and what our process
> for managing the factors that created the current situation will
> be moving forward. For reference you may want to read:
>
> http://www.x180.net/Mutterings/Apache/rules.html
>
> The Chairman hereby requests that parties from both sides of this
> debate be present at this meeting to discuss.
Given the PMC composition and the opinions expressed so far by some of the
PMC members and the silence of the others, I'm sure you'll understand
why I want to stop "beeing a party" of this project in general.
If anyone wants to "debate" with Jon - good luck, I had
enough of that already, and I have a feeling that even the subject of the
debate is wrongly choosen - ( the PMC "reaching final decisions about
the tomcat source" in 1/4 of an afternoon debate, instead of the project
commiters ).
IMHO behaviors like Jon's should be the subject of the debate - but it
seems Jon is a PMC member and one of the organizers of the meeting.
( in any case, I don't think I'm a "side" of any debate regarding tomcat -
I just contributed code and time to a project and got flames back )
Costin