You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com> on 2006/10/05 09:27:34 UTC
Discussing proposals
On 10/4/06, Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de> wrote:
> Hi Bernd,
>
> Am Dienstag, den 03.10.2006, 13:34 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
>
> > while I see there has been some discussion about this mixed in here,
> > what is the current architectural target for this?
> > currently, I am having problems to determine our roadmap concerning
> > this. (did I miss something?)
>
> It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some
> discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like
> "too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short
> time.
> The problem is discussion hibernates without a result.
I am desperate relating your answer to my orginal statement. My
paragraph was just a bad way of asking: "What are the next concrete
steps on the repository/IMAP development stuff people have in mind?",
which you indeed answered at the bottom of your reply.
Instead of endlessly complaining about the stalled discussions, which
does not help anyway, let's change the way of discussion back to ASF
best-practice:
+ stay technical
+ don't take it personally if others have objections
+ fork different topics to their own threads
+ make precise, to the-point statements
+ be consent-oriented, summarize views. if needed, put up a vote
_after_ the discussion has been done.
Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion.
If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting
vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with
early on. That's a psychological fact.
What I had in mind, in fact, was to re-animate the discussion, to
bring it forward and collaborate with you on the topic. (Your current
code is not available on the project, so I cannot comment on this.
Former comments suggested to me there were substantial changes since
July.)
I am just interested in understanding what you are actually doing, not
to blocking anything.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Discussing proposals
Posted by Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de>.
Hi Bernd,
Am Freitag, den 06.10.2006, 12:25 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
> I see that maybe the whole IMAP block is difficult to contribute patch by patch.
> Further, I am very curious about the current state you have and I am
> very looking forward to download soon your current code from JIRA.
>
> This will probably give us a jump start, but the real work only begins
> then, and needs more than just two hands.
Right the API is work-in-progress at some parts and the implementation
is a prototype. It's even not sure if/how long we stay with torque.
Maybe the API will be even redesigned from scratch. The way from the
first implementation to a product is always long.
And I really hope and am looking forward working on this together in a
team. It was never my wish working on this on my own.
Joachim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Discussing proposals
Posted by Norman Maurer <nm...@byteaction.de>.
Joachim Draeger schrieb:
> Hi Bernd,
>
> Am Freitag, den 06.10.2006, 12:25 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
>
>
>> I see that maybe the whole IMAP block is difficult to contribute patch by patch.
>> Further, I am very curious about the current state you have and I am
>> very looking forward to download soon your current code from JIRA.
>>
>> This will probably give us a jump start, but the real work only begins
>> then, and needs more than just two hands.
>>
>
> Right the API is work-in-progress at some parts and the implementation
> is a prototype. It's even not sure if/how long we stay with torque.
> Maybe the API will be even redesigned from scratch. The way from the
> first implementation to a product is always long.
> And I really hope and am looking forward working on this together in a
> team. It was never my wish working on this on my own.
>
> Joachim
You can be sure i will try to help as much as i can ;-)
bye
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Discussing proposals
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On 10/5/06, Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bernd,
>
> And just because I don't want to complain endlessly about stalling
> discussions I did the prototype and explained why I did it. So it
> wasn't my intent to leave the discussion out but I saw no other way and
> hoped that some concrete implementation could bring us some more
> insights. I hesitated for over 2 month before I decided to start on my
> own.
I see that maybe the whole IMAP block is difficult to contribute patch by patch.
Further, I am very curious about the current state you have and I am
very looking forward to download soon your current code from JIRA.
This will probably give us a jump start, but the real work only begins
then, and needs more than just two hands.
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Discussing proposals
Posted by Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de>.
Hi Bernd,
I didn't want to leave the impression that I took something personal,
sorry.
I really appreciate your input. And in fact you did re-animated the
discussion and hit important topics and I argued eagerly.
And just because I don't want to complain endlessly about stalling
discussions I did the prototype and explained why I did it. So it
wasn't my intent to leave the discussion out but I saw no other way and
hoped that some concrete implementation could bring us some more
insights. I hesitated for over 2 month before I decided to start on my
own.
Joachim
Am Donnerstag, den 05.10.2006, 09:27 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
> > > while I see there has been some discussion about this mixed in here,
> > > what is the current architectural target for this?
> > > currently, I am having problems to determine our roadmap concerning
> > > this. (did I miss something?)
> >
> > It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some
> > discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like
> > "too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short
> > time.
> > The problem is discussion hibernates without a result.
>
> I am desperate relating your answer to my orginal statement. My
> paragraph was just a bad way of asking: "What are the next concrete
> steps on the repository/IMAP development stuff people have in mind?",
> which you indeed answered at the bottom of your reply.
>
> Instead of endlessly complaining about the stalled discussions, which
> does not help anyway, let's change the way of discussion back to ASF
> best-practice:
> + stay technical
> + don't take it personally if others have objections
> + fork different topics to their own threads
> + make precise, to the-point statements
> + be consent-oriented, summarize views. if needed, put up a vote
> _after_ the discussion has been done.
>
> Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion.
> If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting
> vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with
> early on. That's a psychological fact.
>
> What I had in mind, in fact, was to re-animate the discussion, to
> bring it forward and collaborate with you on the topic. (Your current
> code is not available on the project, so I cannot comment on this.
> Former comments suggested to me there were substantial changes since
> July.)
>
> I am just interested in understanding what you are actually doing, not
> to blocking anything.
>
> Bernd
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Discussing proposals
Posted by Bernd Fondermann <be...@googlemail.com>.
On 10/5/06, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> > On 10/4/06, Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some
> >> discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like
> >> "too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short
> >> time.
> >> The problem is discussion hibernates without a result.
> > [..]
> > Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion.
> > If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting
> > vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with
> > early on. That's a psychological fact.
>
> As I said many times in past, the problem is not discussion: the problem
> is unfinished discussions. Taking part of a discussion and arguing one
> committer proposal have to be taken with much more responsibility. I
> really don't like when people say I don't like this, this should be done
> so and so and then never reply to techcnical questions made after that
> sentence. This is a style that blocks development at all.
I am under the very strong impression that sometimes people are still
arguing, repeating, discussing when they instead at the same time
already should have agreed in consent.
And _that_ is a problem with the discussion itself.
> There is a lot on what is going on in Joachim's website and his svn
> repository: now that Joachim is a James Committer he can commit it to
> trunk and keep up with development directly on our repository. This way
> we can collaborate much better on the evolution of IMAP.
Doing it here is the _only_ way we can collaborate on the evolution of IMAP.
And thats all what I want. That is why I am asking questions.
You know, IMAP was the first thing I wanted to contribute when I
discovered there where things I wanted to do first. I am really glad
Joachim tackled IMAP meanwhile and is doing the major work, so I don't
have to do it. :-)
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: Discussing proposals
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de> wrote:
>> [...]
>> It's like every time at the James project. A proposal is done, some
>> discussion raises up. If a "religious" architecture topic is hit like
>> "too much protocol dependent" there is a lot of discussion for a short
>> time.
>> The problem is discussion hibernates without a result.
> [..]
> Proposals are just proposals, bases for discussion.
> If you leave the discussion out, you run a much higher risk of getting
> vetos, because people tend to not object things they were involed with
> early on. That's a psychological fact.
As I said many times in past, the problem is not discussion: the problem
is unfinished discussions. Taking part of a discussion and arguing one
committer proposal have to be taken with much more responsibility. I
really don't like when people say I don't like this, this should be done
so and so and then never reply to techcnical questions made after that
sentence. This is a style that blocks development at all.
So once someone made a proposal, started a discussion and the discussion
end in nothing done I think that the best approach is the one Joachim
followed: just start working alone of that thing a simply make it work!
Discussing a concrete thing is much better than discussing something
that does not exists.
Thanks to this approach we now have an almost working IMAP server: if
Joachim waited months for us to discuss a new repository interface and
agree and implement it we would have nothing now.
Instead we have something working and we can now look at it and propose
refactorings.
Of course this approach has risks: you may develop something that will
be rejected. But most time when you develop something is because you
need it. So either way you have to create something as the first goal,
then try to make it land on the James project as the second goal.
Kudos to Joachim because I think he found "the perfect path" for
reintroducing IMAP in our codebase: he's code does not need code changes
on our main codebase and it works.
> What I had in mind, in fact, was to re-animate the discussion, to
> bring it forward and collaborate with you on the topic. (Your current
> code is not available on the project, so I cannot comment on this.
> Former comments suggested to me there were substantial changes since
> July.)
>
> I am just interested in understanding what you are actually doing, not
> to blocking anything.
>
> Bernd
There is a lot on what is going on in Joachim's website and his svn
repository: now that Joachim is a James Committer he can commit it to
trunk and keep up with development directly on our repository. This way
we can collaborate much better on the evolution of IMAP.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org