Change the subject line when you change the subject...done.
Don't top post...failed!
Keep it short...failed!
Oh well...as for the rest...going by example...
The preface
-----------
On Oct 21, 2006, at 11:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
On Oct 21, 2006, at 3:24 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
This is *not* an actual vote. The vote is on harmony-dev; see
Well, then, why did you call it a vote?
You know, that *was* explained in the parts of the e-mail you
snipped, if briefly. Once more...Geir called a vote on harmony-dev
where he asked the people on this list to vote, too, then wrote an e-
mail about that to this list that was hidden inside a long thread:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I figured I'd drag that question out seperately outside of that
thread since Bill expressed concern (in response to Geir's call to
vote) that otherwise this stuff would somehow be hidden.
This is what we call confusing the voters, ballot irregularities,
"hanging chad", and other fun things that cause unnecessary wars.
Hmm. I find this particular decision to hold a vote somewhere else
from standard somewhat annoying (but understand the rationale), agree
it is a confusing (lots of intelligent people around, hopefully
they'll get what's going on), see irregularity but not with the
ballot itself, have no idea what "hanging chad" means, and I don't
understand how any of this is funny at this point. Being a pacifist,
I certainly agree all wars are unnecessary.
Some actions I can think of that can cause flamewars include calling
people names (in general, making a discussion personal rather than
about an issue), ridiculing their ideas and efforts and grossly
exaggerating a depiction of events. In my experience, on-which-
mailing-list-should-we-hold-which-vote can lead to a lot of
discussion (where I seem to consistently be saying "this belongs in
public, this belongs in public, etc", which I think is often worth
the discussion since it helps preserve the ASF's transparancy in
governing), but rarely flamewars.
I don't understand why the mentors are making this process so hard.
It is clear by now that you don't understand or disagree with some of
the decisions harmony's mentors have made or things they have done. I
think I've made a big attempt at making a hard process (given the
amount of e-mail the incubator regularly gets about its complex
processes, I wouldn't say its easy) as easy as possible, so this
comment frustrates me a lot, Roy. I hope you can qualify it so I may
learn. Further down is a detailed POV with some specific questions on
this.
At no time whatsoever during this entire discussion was it ever
possible for Harmony to have failed a graduation vote given the
number of PMC members who are involved in the project, yet you seem
bound and determined to attract as many -1s as possible by dicking
around with a fairly easy procedure.
<joke type="bad">Oh yeah, I'm very determined to attract -1s. As much
as possible. The way the "-" can sometimes hug the "1" if you have
the right font...so much prettier than girls...</joke>
Seriously, can we please stick to civil language, and not attribute
motivation that's so obviously, well, a misattribution?
Look, this is what I did for Jackrabbit:
<http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I remember. I voted:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200603.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is what I did for MerlinDeveloper:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200401.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200401.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
More than 2.5 years ago. Who said incubation processes change much?
The process description
-----------------------
There is no need for special events, no need for advance polls of
consensus, no bizarre multi-list calls for non-voting votes, and
no pissing and moaning about the questions asked by Incubator PMC.
Agree on the first, reserve the right to disagree on the second,
definitely disagree on the qualification for the third, resent the
characterization of the fourth.
Specifically regarding advance polls, I've seen those work quite
successfully when it comes to complex issues, especially after a long
thread of [RT]s (see cocoon, for example, or gump). Alas, not this time.
Specifically regarding pissing and moaning, see below.
Just have the project vote on graduation FIRST
Once again, that has happened, on harmony-private (yes, I complained
about the vote being private. Like a broken record). It says so in
the first line of the first e-mail on this subject:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
and then use that as fodder for the vote by Incubator PMC,
fodder? As in cannon fodder?
answer the questions as best you can,
I've just reviewed my e-mail on the previous thread wondering what
you think I did that is so wrong. I don't get it.
A Brief History Of An Attempt To Be a Good Mentor
-------------------------------------------------
I started with an e-mail to entice my good friend Robert to jump in
and help harmony, since I know he likes the project [1]. I wrote 7 e-
mails [2]-[8] that answered questions and addressed concerns, then
wrote 1 summary e-mail of my view of the status at that point in time
[9], since Greg asked me to gather thoughts into one summary e-mail
instead of send seperate e-mails.
After the next day or so, as the discussion got messier, I wrote an e-
mail responding to several bits at once [10] (again, trying to limit
my contribution to a long thread, full of long e-mails):
1) some discussion about whether it was a valid request to ask to
drop the request for a release
2) some discussion about what exactly the "release state" of the
harmony podling was
I also tried to address Greg's sentiment that issues were being
"talked around" by in that e-mail being as clear (yet brief) in
giving answers as I could possibly be. When that led to me (and more
importantly, Tim, who'd first been lured out of hiding and then
provided explicitly asked for valuable and specific input) being
called a freakin' nut [11], I felt it was fair enough I'd respond to
that (briefly, with some misguided humor, and an explicit suggestion
to de-emotionalize the discussion) [12].
When I next saw Geir call a vote (yay! Out of his comfort zone! At
the suggestion of several people! Good thing! Progress!) [13], I
figured I'd better call some attention to that, given how many people
read only the first 40 e-mails of a relatively boring thread [14],
and given we had planned mail outage this weekend.
Huh?
----
Now, I agree having so many e-mails is not quite optimal and normally
I try and make do with less, but that's what happens when you write
[discussion] in a subject line [15].
With this summary of my one-sided view of all this, can you tell me,
somewhat precisely if possible,
* where I'm "making things hard",
* where I'm "pissing and moaning"
* and where I'm "dicking around"?
An example of what I consider making things hard is making unspecific
references to private e-mail [16,17].
I would say "pissing and moaning" happens when you unnecessarily use
strong language [18,19].
Please, help me out here. What am I misunderstanding?
The process description continues
---------------------------------
and be happy as individuals become satisfied and add their +1s.
I was definitely happy about that. I normally express some amount of
limited happiness where it doesn't hurt the efficiency of e-mail
exchange [20], and leave it out once e-mail threads get over a
certain size.
When that looks like a positive outcome, send the resolution to the
board.
Since Geir really likes to do that kind of thing, me and Dims often
manage to mess some detail up when it comes to formal language and
processes (non-native-English people, you know), and Stefano
passionately hates formal bits, I suspect he'll take care of that.
If you don't do that, my guess is that the board will tell you to
do it all again before the resolution is considered at the next
meeting, because Harmony is not a special case.
I agree harmony is not a special case. I keep saying each podling is
a little bit of a special case. I do hope the board will not ask us
to do it *all* again...especially not the legal framework setup, that
was particularly boring.
cheers,
Leo
[1] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[2] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[3] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[4] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[5] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[6] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[7] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[8] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[9] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[10] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[11] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[12] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[13] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[14] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[15] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[16] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[17] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[18] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/
200610.mbox/%
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[19] see comments above
[20] http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/
200610.mbox/ajax/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
%3e
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
