atom feed107 messages in org.apache.communityRe: Rules for Revolutionaries
FromSent OnAttachments
18 earlier messages
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 7, 2002 9:27 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 7, 2002 12:39 pm 
Rich BowenNov 8, 2002 4:36 am 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 8, 2002 9:06 am 
Sam RubyNov 8, 2002 1:50 pm 
Costin ManolacheNov 8, 2002 2:05 pm 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 8, 2002 2:46 pm 
Costin ManolacheNov 8, 2002 3:11 pm 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 8, 2002 3:48 pm 
Craig R. McClanahanNov 8, 2002 4:02 pm 
Andrew C. OliverNov 8, 2002 4:57 pm 
Andrew C. OliverNov 8, 2002 5:03 pm 
Martin van den BemtNov 8, 2002 5:14 pm 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 8, 2002 5:48 pm 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 8, 2002 5:51 pm 
James TaylorNov 8, 2002 5:56 pm 
Craig R. McClanahanNov 8, 2002 5:58 pm 
Craig R. McClanahanNov 8, 2002 6:05 pm 
Sam RubyNov 8, 2002 6:17 pm 
Andrew C. OliverNov 8, 2002 6:38 pm 
Andrew C. OliverNov 8, 2002 6:40 pm 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 12:29 am 
Jeff TurnerNov 9, 2002 2:44 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 3:27 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:13 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:25 am 
Andrew C. OliverNov 9, 2002 4:27 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:31 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:35 am 
Andrew C. OliverNov 9, 2002 4:36 am 
Danny AngusNov 9, 2002 4:39 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 4:50 am 
Martin van den BemtNov 9, 2002 5:21 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 6:28 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 9, 2002 8:50 am 
Sam RubyNov 9, 2002 9:29 am 
Costin ManolacheNov 9, 2002 10:23 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 10:49 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 9, 2002 10:58 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 9, 2002 12:33 pm 
James Duncan DavidsonNov 9, 2002 3:29 pm 
James Duncan DavidsonNov 9, 2002 3:37 pm 
Chuck MurckoNov 9, 2002 6:08 pm 
Rodent of Unusual SizeNov 10, 2002 5:29 am 
Ceki GülcüNov 10, 2002 6:22 am 
James Duncan DavidsonNov 10, 2002 9:14 am 
Stefano MazzocchiNov 11, 2002 7:05 pm 
Stephen McConnellNov 11, 2002 7:26 pm 
Sam RubyNov 11, 2002 7:41 pm 
Jeff TurnerNov 11, 2002 7:43 pm 
39 later messages
Subject:Re: Rules for Revolutionaries
From:Stefano Mazzocchi (stef@apache.org)
Date:Nov 9, 2002 4:13:32 am
List:org.apache.community

Sam Ruby wrote:

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:

Duncan is the original author of both Tomcat 3.x and Ant. He became more and more involved into open source evangelization activity in Sun (where he worked at that time) and detached from the Ant development community.

At some point, he came back, he didn't like some of the technical/design choices that were done and proposed his own. Since these changes were revolutionary, he wanted to use the rules for revolutionaries and start working on its own internal fork codenamed 'amber'.

Dry story: he was told he had to re-earn committership in order to do that. He tried to fought that, but got pissed after slamming on some rubber walls and left, leaving a bad taste in many people's mouths. His own first.

I differ with that rendition, and believe that it is harmful to the community for it to be propogated.

Thanks for keeping me on track on this.

I actually didn't know that I was choosen as an example of person leading a project, then going away, than come back. I did it twice, for different reasons.

But my way of coming back has been *much* different than Duncan's, probably that is what made the difference.

Anyway, going thru the mail thread I identified a problem that I didn't see before: Peter checked in several proposals and this would be something against the rules. Only committers have a right to propose an internal fork, but they must work on their own stuff, not act as a proxy for external people who came up with their ideas.

The reason is simple: a codebase without a person working actively on it it's totally useless, it just adds mess because people will not going to read that code anyway if nobody is there yelling "look at how I solved your problem in my proposal".

So, I think two things can be learned from the ant story:

- the original author of the code doesn't have to re-earn recognition, but it *does* have to re-earn respect from all the new persons that came to the project while he/she was away. Bashing is exactly the opposite of this.

- an internal fork proposal must have at least one committer actively working on it. This didn't happen and resulted in several 'dead but showing off' proposals that just increased confusion and FUD.

Anyway, I still see no sign that the rules for revolutionaries don't work.