On 1/20/01 2:45 PM, "Paulo Gaspar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, you choused to write about this mess on the list again. So, I
> will answer on the list. I hope this does not (re)start anything.
Yep. I chose to. Of course because of that it'll all be my fault. :) Of
course, I'm on a variable time delay right now given that I'm traveling so
I'm not seeing everything "real time".
> Everything I am writing here was already told before in previous postings.
> Maybe you had no patience to read all the stuff behind - and I can
> understand that.
Maybe I was putting forth my opinion as well. Happens now and then. :)
> Jon often is right and I never denied that. The problem only had to do with
> the frequent lack of a minimum of respect and politeness.
Funny that Jon created jserv.apache.org as a haven for Java development that
was to be the "nicer, gentler Apache". The flamewars seen on the Apache
mailing list are legendary. Is this a great thing to brag about? No. Not
really. However, I personally think it would be a shame to muzzle somebody
for anything less than harassment that is probably legally prosecutable. If
somebody threatens personal harm, then that's definitely over the line. So
far though, we've been lucky enough to not see "I'm going to drive right
over to your house and kick your ass" being stated on the mailing lists.
>> As far as the dial-ins -- I'm disappointed as well that they were not as
>> well used as they could have been.
>
> Understandable.
>
> But you are not telling me and others how I should have used the connection
> and how I am a bad boy for not doing it and so on.
>
> That was the issue. Jon know nothing about the lives and problems of several
> people that he flamed because of not dialing in.
We talked about using dial ins from about the day that we announced the
meeting. I didn't hear *anything* about the possibility that they wouldn't
work for some people. We *did* make sure that the number given would work
overseas as we have had a problem with some 800 conference numbers being
blocked from international access. This of course raised costs for people in
the US.
I'm pretty sure that if somebody had mailed us and said -- hey, can you guys
do a callback or something, that we would have at least tried to help out.
It would have been investigated and if it cost anything approaching
reasonable (defined as reasonable to the companies that kicked out bucks to
make this meeting happen) then it would have happened.
Or, if somebody had stepped forward and said "Hey, I'm bringing my laptop
and a microphone to do real time shoutcasting of the meeting", I would have
said "Cool, let's coordinate with Collab to make sure that network is
provided". Maybe somebody wants to step up and do that in the future?
At some point though, everyone here bears some of the costs of
participating. It is true that nothing is free. You spend money for the
computer hardware that you use to access the net. You spend money to connect
to the net. And some even spend money on the software/operating system to
access the net with. There are very real costs involved in collaborative
development that are shared by all, though some bear a bigger brunt than
others. I don't even want to think of the money that Brian and Collab and
others pay to provide bandwidth and sysadmin duties to the ASF (not to
mention hardware which in comparison is a minimal cost). And if we started
adding up the time value that people put in, a big number would pop out.
My point is, there's no such thing as a free lunch here. If you want to help
out or suggest ways that we can help you, then do so.
> I also have no problem about the existence of cliques like the core Apache
> team. Any organization needs a core and I think that this is a strong one.
>
> However, I think that this kind of clique must rule by example.
s/must/should/ -- there's no onus enforced to make people in an open source
project hold themselves and their behavior up to some sort of standard other
than the fact that if people don't like that person or group of people, they
can always fork away or do something else with their life. We do have a set
of rules that admittedly needing some work. Right now, those rules don't say
anything about "Rules of Conduct". Until they do, there is no "must" there.
> Someone (more than once, different people) asked me to stop because I was
> replying without quitting to anything Jon posted just as he was replying to
> me (as you wrote, it takes two!).
>
> So, Jon and I were doing the same (bad) thing, but only I got reprehended
> that time. Reprehending both (or none) would be a lot more coherent.
Actually, I don't think I reprehended either of you. All I did was defend
him a bit. And if he had stated that he thought that you were out of line
with your postings, I probably would have flamed him a bit for that... As
far as other people reprehending you, well, that's their business.
> I wanted to see how far this could go.
I get the feeling that we have people "playing chess" with this sort of
thing. I'm not happy about that feeling.
--
James Duncan Davidson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
!try; do()
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
