commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benedikt Ritter <>
Subject Re: [ALL] The Commons Math issue
Date Fri, 14 Apr 2017 14:42:50 GMT
As always very well put, Stefan!

Stefan Bodewig <> schrieb am Fr. 14. Apr. 2017 um 16:34:

> On 2017-04-13, Gilles wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:53:27 +0200, Stefan Bodewig wrote:
> >> On 2017-04-12, Gilles wrote:
> >>> [Reminder: a big part of "Commons RNG" was developed inside CM and
> >>> most PMC people did not even know about it (although I was opening
> >>> JIRA issues all along.  Hence creating a "git" repository is not
> >>> futile if it can raise awareness.]
> >> By now you've probably learned that people won't look at JIRA issues
> >> raised for components they don't work on. At least I don't :-)
> > A priori, I don't have any problem with an individual taking that
> > stance. [I do it too, because a day is only 24 hours long.]
> > But then, one is not entitled to claim a say about the issues which
> > he let pass...
> I don't recall ever claiming anything like this.
> Not sure what you are trying to say here. It could be that you are
> trying to attack me but I hope you are not. Email is a difficult beast,
> in particular emails written in a foreign language (German is my native
> language and I don't think English is yours, either, there is lot of
> room for misunderstandings).
> >> I prefer the "small steps" approach taken with RNG and NUMBERS.
> > That's what I've been advocating all along.
> Fine, then we all seem to be on the same page. Let's move on.
> >> I read you expect the PMC to do something, but unfortunately I don't
> >> understand what it is that you want the PMC to do. Maybe we are are
> >> interpreting the role of the PMC differently.
> >> In what way has the integrity of the Commons project been endangered?
> >> I've seen people fork the code of MATH - which is fine by our license
> >> - and move to work in a different environment - which is their choice
> >> and I'm not willing to judge them.
> > And I think that the PMC has been wrong in passively accepting the
> > "surprise" fork.
> Oops, I thought you were talking about the PMC harming MATH right now,
> after all you started the thread based on the report for the past
> quarter, not years ago. I'm sorry I misunderstood you.
> > Because it came from _inside_ the community, the PMC would have
> > been right to demand that a reasonable attempt be made at exposing
> > the reasons, and at trying to fix issues while preserving the
> > community.
> > I was hurt by the fork, and the way it happened.  And I was hurt that
> > the PMC did not see anything wrong in "community fellows" keeping me
> > in the dark for five months, to work alone on a doomed project, while
> > they were sneakily setting up an alternative environment.
> I understand the action hurt you. Absolutely.
> On the road that led to people starting their fork somewhere else there
> have been lots of heated arguments. It looked like bad flame-wars that
> happen in other communities as well and yes, the PMC should probably
> have tried to stop them and remind people to treat each other with
> respect. We didn't and I think this has been acknowledged in the past. I
> don't have the links ready but I know several PMC members have said so
> already.  We try to learn from it.
> We don't need to tell the board that we are still trying to do better
> with each report, though. :-)
> To be frank my recollection of said arguments is not one where one side
> was the reasonable voice and victim of attacks while the other side was
> wielding flame-throwers. We should have called out *all* of you.
> As to the action of forking itself, I still don't see anything the PMC
> should have done about it. We should have interfered before it
> happened. That doesn't mean I'm convinced that we could have been
> successfull back then.
> >> I've seen you sticking around to work on MATH and keeping the parts
> >> alive that you care deeply about and finding new contributors that
> >> share those goal - which is great.
> > Or stupid...
> No more stupid than most of us working on any other component in their
> spare time.
> >> The PMC has not been standing in the way of RNG or NUMBERS, maybe
> >> discussions have been taking longer than you'd have wanted.
> > Yes that's one of the things that prevent "do-ocracy": someone
> > willing to do the work is stalled by (non-technical) arguments
> > from someone not intending to back them with actual work (same
> > reference):
> That's the price of consensus. You don't get to choose who needs to
> agree with you, you have to convince all people who show up. This takes
> time and drains energy. Yes, a dictator style development approach can
> move a lot faster. This is a drawback of consensus based development
> that we have accepted, or else we'd all by playing with our github repos
> on our own.
> Stefan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message