Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi,

Apologies to David as I just wrote him in a private message that I
wasn't going to rehash the past, "including the clowns and jokers
bit". But seeing others join his chorus makes me really angry, so
here's some rehashing.

For what purpose? Mostly venting I guess. Maybe to avoid just slamming
the door and leaving for more fun activities.

I've gotten my fair share of private messages about ESME in the last
week, related to the discussion about removing copyright notices and
to David's departure. That's usually a bad sign, as we expect as much
as possible to be discussed on the project's public list, and the few
issues that need privacy to be discussed on the esme-private PPMC
list. I'll survive I guess, but that's no fun.

I saw David's "clowns to the left, jokers to the right" tweet a few
days ago (http://twitter.com/dpp/status/7530960461) as we where
discussing the copyright notices issues on this list. Considering that
he seems to be angry about ESME, Apache, mentors or all of that I
didn't want to feed the troll. And maybe he was talking about
something else, right? Benefit of doubt etc.

Now I see Vassil joining the chorus with "clowns running the show":
http://twitter.com/vdichev/status/7587192641

As a mentor who's trying to help ESME go forward despite some bumps in
the road, I'm *very*" disappointed by those sneaky comments behind our
backs.

As I wrote on Twitter, I love circuses and clowns, but if the show is
not fun I tend to leave early.

Please remember that your incubation mentors are:

a) volunteers.

b) trying to help the project go forward, which includes coping with
disagreement and some not fun at all discussions over not fun at all
things at times. As a Swiss citizen I can't help comparing our job
with Winkelried's [1] sometimes, and I don't mind being the "bad guy"
sometimes when it comes to putting the project back on the ASF track.

c) imperfect human beings.

d) sometimes having to cope with podlings going south on a Sunday
evening. Is that fun or what?

And thanks to those of you ESME folks who have been collaborating in a
constructive way for getting this project on track - you know who you
are.

-Bertrand

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_von_Winkelried

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message ----

> From: Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>
> To: esme-dev <es...@incubator.apache.org>
> Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 2:54:48 AM
> Subject: Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?
> 
> Hi Joe,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
> > ...The situation that ESME is faced with is cut-and-dry, and is
> > documented here:
> >
> > http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
> >
> > The fact is that David violated that particular ASF policy when he
> > committed those copyright notices, and the mentors are correct that
> > this will block an ESME release.  There is no need to involve legal-discuss
> > as this is a policy question, not a legal issue....
> 
> I see your point, but there might be a legal issue in the way we
> resolve the situation. We might imagine forcibly removing those
> notices (as per policy they should not be there) and David indicated
> that he "legally" disagrees with this, so I'd still like to discuss
> the available options on legal-discuss. Coming up.

The paged reference seems clear as to the available options: either David
complies with policy (unlikely) or all commits he made which could be
considered under that copyright need to be reverted.  Under no circumstances
should anyone other than David remove those copyright notices unless they're
removing his full contributions to the files in question.



      

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi Joe,

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...The situation that ESME is faced with is cut-and-dry, and is
> documented here:
>
> http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright
>
> The fact is that David violated that particular ASF policy when he
> committed those copyright notices, and the mentors are correct that
> this will block an ESME release.  There is no need to involve legal-discuss
> as this is a policy question, not a legal issue....

I see your point, but there might be a legal issue in the way we
resolve the situation. We might imagine forcibly removing those
notices (as per policy they should not be there) and David indicated
that he "legally" disagrees with this, so I'd still like to discuss
the available options on legal-discuss. Coming up.

-Bertrand

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Joe Schaefer <jo...@yahoo.com>]

----- Original Message ----

> From: Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>
> To: esme-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Sun, January 10, 2010 11:46:51 PM
> Subject: Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?
> 
> Why don't we wait and see what suggestions surface on the
> legal-discuss list before we continue this debate on the esme mailing
> lists? Without their legal advice, it is impossible to achieve clarity
> or an agreement on our options.

The situation that ESME is faced with is cut-and-dry, and is
documented here:

http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html#header-existingcopyright

The fact is that David violated that particular ASF policy when he
committed those copyright notices, and the mentors are correct that
this will block an ESME release.  There is no need to involve legal-discuss
as this is a policy question, not a legal issue.

> 
> I also agree that is critical to deal with this issue - however, a
> flamewar here and on Twitter isn't going to help anyone.
> 
> D.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Vassil Dichev wrote:
> >> This time, though, I think a certain mentor's reply was more
> >> inflammatory and the options suggested were disappointing.
> >
> > OK - I'll try and start by being more accommodating: can you please
> > enlighten me on the other possible options? To me either we (the ASF)
> > have been licensed copyright on the ESME codebase, or we are not. In
> > the former, there is an ESME project. In the latter, there is nothing,
> > nada, zilch. As a mentor, I cannot possibly let statement such as
> > David's go unanswered - it needs to be crystal clear how things work.
> > And I would actually urge you to have a look at the point where I
> > jumped into the discussion, to be amazed at how accommodating and
> > willing to talk David was.
> >
> >> ESME could
> >> go on without David. But David's initial code contribution and design
> >> is in the heart of ESME so much so that it's inseparable. Removing
> >> David's contribution would mean starting from scratch.
> >
> > You are getting it wrong. There is no such thing as "David's
> > contribution" in Apache project terms, the moment David decides that
> > he didn't license his copyright to the ASF. It's code that landed here
> > by mistake, full stop.
> >
> >> So I was
> >> surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before
> >> the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion.
> >
> > I'm all for discussing, but I stand by my words: *if* David's code is
> > not licensed to the ASF as per the CLA and general Apache procedures
> > demand, then there is nothing the ASF can release. And may I point out
> > that it wasn't me (yet) resigning from the project?
> >
> >> I'd also say that my message is no more sneaky than Gianugo's email to
> >> the private list. My Twitter timeline is public and I know Bertrand is
> >> following me. By contrast, at the time of Gianugo's reply I wasn't on
> >> the private list.
> >
> > Oh, give me a break now. I wrote to the private list as this is about
> > a potentially sensitive legal and personal issue - as such, the
> > private list was a good candidate for discussion although I concede
> > that it works here as well. But calling my message sneaky because you
> > didn't do your freakin' homework as a committer by subscribing to all
> > the project lists is laughable.
> >
> >> I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve
> >> and evolve the project.
> >
> > Allow me to disagree. After a year, I am faced with core committers
> > who didn't bother read what they signed and understand the basis of
> > how the apache legal side works. Or even arguing that a major legal
> > issue is shouldn't get in the way of a release. That means a lot of
> > need for handholding. It actually means going back to ASF-101.
> >
> >> I think we have proven this during the course
> >> of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this
> >> means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other
> >> things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and
> >> removing the project founder's code.
> >
> > Again, I'm all ears and I would love to hear alternatives. But please
> > consider I am not the one calling names and going away taking the ball
> > with me. All I'm saying is that if this issue isn't resolved for the
> > better, some code will have to go. And it would be completely
> > irresponsible to the verge of being insane to ever start considering
> > for a single moment that a release is even remotely possible given the
> > current state of affairs. You are building on sand.
> >
> > --
> > Gianugo Rabellino
> > M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
> > Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
> >



      

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Richard Hirsch <hi...@gmail.com>]

Why don't we wait and see what suggestions surface on the
legal-discuss list before we continue this debate on the esme mailing
lists? Without their legal advice, it is impossible to achieve clarity
or an agreement on our options.

I also agree that is critical to deal with this issue - however, a
flamewar here and on Twitter isn't going to help anyone.

D.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Gianugo Rabellino
<g....@sourcesense.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
>> This time, though, I think a certain mentor's reply was more
>> inflammatory and the options suggested were disappointing.
>
> OK - I'll try and start by being more accommodating: can you please
> enlighten me on the other possible options? To me either we (the ASF)
> have been licensed copyright on the ESME codebase, or we are not. In
> the former, there is an ESME project. In the latter, there is nothing,
> nada, zilch. As a mentor, I cannot possibly let statement such as
> David's go unanswered - it needs to be crystal clear how things work.
> And I would actually urge you to have a look at the point where I
> jumped into the discussion, to be amazed at how accommodating and
> willing to talk David was.
>
>> ESME could
>> go on without David. But David's initial code contribution and design
>> is in the heart of ESME so much so that it's inseparable. Removing
>> David's contribution would mean starting from scratch.
>
> You are getting it wrong. There is no such thing as "David's
> contribution" in Apache project terms, the moment David decides that
> he didn't license his copyright to the ASF. It's code that landed here
> by mistake, full stop.
>
>> So I was
>> surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before
>> the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion.
>
> I'm all for discussing, but I stand by my words: *if* David's code is
> not licensed to the ASF as per the CLA and general Apache procedures
> demand, then there is nothing the ASF can release. And may I point out
> that it wasn't me (yet) resigning from the project?
>
>> I'd also say that my message is no more sneaky than Gianugo's email to
>> the private list. My Twitter timeline is public and I know Bertrand is
>> following me. By contrast, at the time of Gianugo's reply I wasn't on
>> the private list.
>
> Oh, give me a break now. I wrote to the private list as this is about
> a potentially sensitive legal and personal issue - as such, the
> private list was a good candidate for discussion although I concede
> that it works here as well. But calling my message sneaky because you
> didn't do your freakin' homework as a committer by subscribing to all
> the project lists is laughable.
>
>> I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve
>> and evolve the project.
>
> Allow me to disagree. After a year, I am faced with core committers
> who didn't bother read what they signed and understand the basis of
> how the apache legal side works. Or even arguing that a major legal
> issue is shouldn't get in the way of a release. That means a lot of
> need for handholding. It actually means going back to ASF-101.
>
>> I think we have proven this during the course
>> of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this
>> means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other
>> things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and
>> removing the project founder's code.
>
> Again, I'm all ears and I would love to hear alternatives. But please
> consider I am not the one calling names and going away taking the ball
> with me. All I'm saying is that if this issue isn't resolved for the
> better, some code will have to go. And it would be completely
> irresponsible to the verge of being insane to ever start considering
> for a single moment that a release is even remotely possible given the
> current state of affairs. You are building on sand.
>
> --
> Gianugo Rabellino
> M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
> Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com
>

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Gianugo Rabellino <g....@sourcesense.com>]

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
> This time, though, I think a certain mentor's reply was more
> inflammatory and the options suggested were disappointing.

OK - I'll try and start by being more accommodating: can you please
enlighten me on the other possible options? To me either we (the ASF)
have been licensed copyright on the ESME codebase, or we are not. In
the former, there is an ESME project. In the latter, there is nothing,
nada, zilch. As a mentor, I cannot possibly let statement such as
David's go unanswered - it needs to be crystal clear how things work.
And I would actually urge you to have a look at the point where I
jumped into the discussion, to be amazed at how accommodating and
willing to talk David was.

> ESME could
> go on without David. But David's initial code contribution and design
> is in the heart of ESME so much so that it's inseparable. Removing
> David's contribution would mean starting from scratch.

You are getting it wrong. There is no such thing as "David's
contribution" in Apache project terms, the moment David decides that
he didn't license his copyright to the ASF. It's code that landed here
by mistake, full stop.

> So I was
> surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before
> the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion.

I'm all for discussing, but I stand by my words: *if* David's code is
not licensed to the ASF as per the CLA and general Apache procedures
demand, then there is nothing the ASF can release. And may I point out
that it wasn't me (yet) resigning from the project?

> I'd also say that my message is no more sneaky than Gianugo's email to
> the private list. My Twitter timeline is public and I know Bertrand is
> following me. By contrast, at the time of Gianugo's reply I wasn't on
> the private list.

Oh, give me a break now. I wrote to the private list as this is about
a potentially sensitive legal and personal issue - as such, the
private list was a good candidate for discussion although I concede
that it works here as well. But calling my message sneaky because you
didn't do your freakin' homework as a committer by subscribing to all
the project lists is laughable.

> I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve
> and evolve the project.

Allow me to disagree. After a year, I am faced with core committers
who didn't bother read what they signed and understand the basis of
how the apache legal side works. Or even arguing that a major legal
issue is shouldn't get in the way of a release. That means a lot of
need for handholding. It actually means going back to ASF-101.

> I think we have proven this during the course
> of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this
> means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other
> things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and
> removing the project founder's code.

Again, I'm all ears and I would love to hear alternatives. But please
consider I am not the one calling names and going away taking the ball
with me. All I'm saying is that if this issue isn't resolved for the
better, some code will have to go. And it would be completely
irresponsible to the verge of being insane to ever start considering
for a single moment that a release is even remotely possible given the
current state of affairs. You are building on sand.

-- 
Gianugo Rabellino
M: +44 779 5364 932 / +39 389 44 26 846
Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>]

Hi Vassil,

Thanks very much for your reply, I agree that 140 chars is not the way
to go do discuss such difficult issues.

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org> wrote:
> ...I was
> surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before
> the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion...

Unfortunately, removing David's code might be required if no agreement
can be found about the copyright notices that he refuses to remove.
I'm seriously hoping and relatively confident that we'll find a way
that doesn't require that, but it's reality. And if that has to
happen, better early than later when that might result in an even more
horrible mess.

> ...I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve
> and evolve the project. I think we have proven this during the course
> of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this
> means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other
> things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and
> removing the project founder's code....

I agree that ESME is getting ready to graduate in many ways, yet we
now have this serious issue that needs to be fixed. If you or others
see us incubation mentors as getting in the way, please say so. For
the record, I fully support Gianugo's view, although it's obvious that
he and David don't get along well on our lists, so reading filters
might be in order when they write to each other.

> ...Everyone is a volunteer and everyone is human- not only the mentors.
> I, for one, barely have enough time to think about ESME's technical
> challenges without getting into legal ones as well. I also have to
> admit my tweets could be more diplomatic after a sleepless night with
> a sick kid. However, none of us are here for fun, so I would be happy
> to apologize if this can get the legal and personal issues resolved....

No apologies needed between you and me I think, thanks for bringing
your concerns here.

-Bertrand

Re: Clowns running the show, isn't that nice?

[Vassil Dichev <vd...@apache.org>]

Hi Bertrand,

Quoting parts of 140 character messages is definitely losing a lot of
context, so let me explain.

First of all let me say that I don't have complaints against you or
Daniel. I especially appreciate your attempt to resolve problems in a
rational way since "we probably all have better things to do than
argue about such things" (with Bertrand's permission, I'm quoting him
and hope I'm not misrepresenting him)

I also do not always agree with David's personal opinions and if they
weren't brought to the esme-dev mailing list last time, a flame war
could have been avoided.

This time, though, I think a certain mentor's reply was more
inflammatory and the options suggested were disappointing. ESME could
go on without David. But David's initial code contribution and design
is in the heart of ESME so much so that it's inseparable. Removing
David's contribution would mean starting from scratch. So I was
surprised that a mentor would suggest that splitting ESME right before
the release is a better course of action than an educated discussion.

I'd also say that my message is no more sneaky than Gianugo's email to
the private list. My Twitter timeline is public and I know Bertrand is
following me. By contrast, at the time of Gianugo's reply I wasn't on
the private list.

I do not believe the ESME team needs special handholding to improve
and evolve the project. I think we have proven this during the course
of the last year. There are regular commits and discussions, this
means our motivation is strong enough. But I believe there are other
things to try first before suggesting blocking the release and
removing the project founder's code.

Everyone is a volunteer and everyone is human- not only the mentors.
I, for one, barely have enough time to think about ESME's technical
challenges without getting into legal ones as well. I also have to
admit my tweets could be more diplomatic after a sleepless night with
a sick kid. However, none of us are here for fun, so I would be happy
to apologize if this can get the legal and personal issues resolved.


> Apologies to David as I just wrote him in a private message that I
> wasn't going to rehash the past, "including the clowns and jokers
> bit". But seeing others join his chorus makes me really angry, so
> here's some rehashing.
>
> For what purpose? Mostly venting I guess. Maybe to avoid just slamming
> the door and leaving for more fun activities.
>
> I've gotten my fair share of private messages about ESME in the last
> week, related to the discussion about removing copyright notices and
> to David's departure. That's usually a bad sign, as we expect as much
> as possible to be discussed on the project's public list, and the few
> issues that need privacy to be discussed on the esme-private PPMC
> list. I'll survive I guess, but that's no fun.
>
> I saw David's "clowns to the left, jokers to the right" tweet a few
> days ago (http://twitter.com/dpp/status/7530960461) as we where
> discussing the copyright notices issues on this list. Considering that
> he seems to be angry about ESME, Apache, mentors or all of that I
> didn't want to feed the troll. And maybe he was talking about
> something else, right? Benefit of doubt etc.
>
> Now I see Vassil joining the chorus with "clowns running the show":
> http://twitter.com/vdichev/status/7587192641
>
> As a mentor who's trying to help ESME go forward despite some bumps in
> the road, I'm *very*" disappointed by those sneaky comments behind our
> backs.
>
> As I wrote on Twitter, I love circuses and clowns, but if the show is
> not fun I tend to leave early.
>
> Please remember that your incubation mentors are:
>
> a) volunteers.
>
> b) trying to help the project go forward, which includes coping with
> disagreement and some not fun at all discussions over not fun at all
> things at times. As a Swiss citizen I can't help comparing our job
> with Winkelried's [1] sometimes, and I don't mind being the "bad guy"
> sometimes when it comes to putting the project back on the ASF track.
>
> c) imperfect human beings.
>
> d) sometimes having to cope with podlings going south on a Sunday
> evening. Is that fun or what?
>
> And thanks to those of you ESME folks who have been collaborating in a
> constructive way for getting this project on track - you know who you
> are.
>
> -Bertrand
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_von_Winkelried
>