Re: svn commit: r923126 - /ofbiz/site/index.html

[Scott Gray-2]

I have no idea what either of you are talking about.  Please feel free to elaborate or if they were throw away comments then lets just go ahead and do that.

Regards
Scott

On 16/03/2010, at 3:43 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> A better way to put it might be rule by man as opposed to rule by law.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> David would have said that we have a problem without a requirement :o)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Sharan-F" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Everyone
>>>
>>> I agree with Ruth – I'm OK for it to be removed if its causing problems.
>>>
>>> Do some formal rules exist already around this?  If not then what about this
>>> as a suggestion? As there has been several misunderstandings related to what
>>> can and cant be put on the main page – could the PMC consider putting
>>> together some written rules made accessible to the whole community so it can
>>> be made crystal clear to anyone interested in putting information on the
>>> main OFBiz page.
>>>
>>> I think it's hard to understand what's required if there's nothing telling
>>> you what is and isn't allowed.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r923126-ofbiz-site-index-html-tp1594379p1595410.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>

[Jacques Le Roux]

As long as we all agree I can't see any problems with "rule by man". Actually I re-thought about our last discussion.
I'm not really interested by Justice as you depicted it (ie rule by law) but I can't stand Injustice, which is not the same thing. A
lot of people died because of Injustice.

BTW Scott, It was more a joke from my side. Because often in such cases David (rightly) outline that somebody is trying to fix a
problem without a requirement.
I guess what David said is that you tried to find a solution the human way (ie rule by man or maybe we could say consensus)

Jacques

From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>

> A better way to put it might be rule by man as opposed to rule by law.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>
>> David would have said that we have a problem without a requirement :o)
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> From: "Sharan-F" <[hidden email]>
>>> Hi Everyone
>>>
>>> I agree with Ruth – I'm OK for it to be removed if its causing problems.
>>>
>>> Do some formal rules exist already around this?  If not then what about this
>>> as a suggestion? As there has been several misunderstandings related to what
>>> can and cant be put on the main page – could the PMC consider putting
>>> together some written rules made accessible to the whole community so it can
>>> be made crystal clear to anyone interested in putting information on the
>>> main OFBiz page.
>>>
>>> I think it's hard to understand what's required if there's nothing telling
>>> you what is and isn't allowed.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Sharan
>>> --
>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r923126-ofbiz-site-index-html-tp1594379p1595410.html
>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>

[Sharan-F]

Hi Everyone

I've spoken to Ruth and she thinks that it will be probably be early next week before the fix can be put in. If that's not acceptable then please remove the link now (otherwise we'll get back to you by next Tuesday 23rd March at the latest with the fix).

Thanks
Sharan

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:

> As long as we all agree I can't see any problems with "rule by man". Actually I re-thought about our last discussion.
> I'm not really interested by Justice as you depicted it (ie rule by law) but I can't stand Injustice, which is not the same thing. A lot of people died because of Injustice.

I didn't say there was anything wrong about rule by man (what I think is another matter, and that depends on context). I was just saying that was a better characterization of what Sharan was asking for, ie rule by man versus rule by law and nothing to do with requirements or designs.

> BTW Scott, It was more a joke from my side. Because often in such cases David (rightly) outline that somebody is trying to fix a problem without a requirement.
> I guess what David said is that you tried to find a solution the human way (ie rule by man or maybe we could say consensus)

Actually, I just said what I wrote, and that's it... just introducing alternative terminology.

I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.

-David

> From: "David E Jones" <[hidden email]>
>> A better way to put it might be rule by man as opposed to rule by law.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
>>
>>> David would have said that we have a problem without a requirement :o)
>>>
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>> From: "Sharan-F" <[hidden email]>
>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Ruth – I'm OK for it to be removed if its causing problems.
>>>>
>>>> Do some formal rules exist already around this?  If not then what about this
>>>> as a suggestion? As there has been several misunderstandings related to what
>>>> can and cant be put on the main page – could the PMC consider putting
>>>> together some written rules made accessible to the whole community so it can
>>>> be made crystal clear to anyone interested in putting information on the
>>>> main OFBiz page.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's hard to understand what's required if there's nothing telling
>>>> you what is and isn't allowed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Sharan
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context: http://n4.nabble.com/Re-svn-commit-r923126-ofbiz-site-index-html-tp1594379p1595410.html
>>>> Sent from the OFBiz - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:

> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.

Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.

You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.

Regards
Scott

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>
> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>
> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.

Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...

-David

[Scott Gray-2]

On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>
>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>
>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>
> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...

These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.

If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.

Regards
Scott

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>>
>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>>
>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>
>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...
>
> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.
>
> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.

My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects.

While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it), but we have historically allowed linking to resources that are not part of OFBiz but that are about the project and add value for users and contributors.

I have a problem with these recent complaints because:

1. there is no policy
2. the people who are complaining personally, or others in a company they work for, have done effectively the same thing

What will the net result be? There's only one possibility: conflict and alienation in the community.

This is little more than a total failure to collaborate and work together. It's that simple. There's too little generosity and giving people a chance, and there's too little recognizing one's own faults and being willing to compromise. There's too much nit-picking and making distinctions where there are none to justify one's own behavior and condemn someone else's. We either learn how to get along or we won't get along. There is no "get along fairy."

People can deny this all they want, but it won't help fix the problem. We could introduce more draconian policies and that will treat a symptom (like no blogs, no docs, no nothing but real genuine news items voted on the by PMC allowed on the home page), but it won't solve the real problem.

-David

[Scott Gray-2]

On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>>>
>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>
>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...
>>
>> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.
>>
>> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.
>
> My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects.
>
> While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it)

You make this sound like a policy

> , but we have historically allowed linking to resources that are not part of OFBiz but that are about the project and add value for users and contributors.
>
> I have a problem with these recent complaints because:
>
> 1. there is no policy

But hear you say there is no policy

> 2. the people who are complaining personally, or others in a company they work for, have done effectively the same thing

Please elaborate

> What will the net result be? There's only one possibility: conflict and alienation in the community.
>
> This is little more than a total failure to collaborate and work together. It's that simple. There's too little generosity and giving people a chance, and there's too little recognizing one's own faults and being willing to compromise. There's too much nit-picking and making distinctions where there are none to justify one's own behavior and condemn someone else's. We either learn how to get along or we won't get along. There is no "get along fairy."

I was following you until this paragraph, but now you've lost me again.  Surely you're not talking about the issues raised in this thread?  There's a lot of accusations there but I can't respond because I have no idea what you're talking about.

> People can deny this all they want, but it won't help fix the problem.

I don't think anyone is capable of denying vague accusations directed at nobody in particular.

> We could introduce more draconian policies and that will treat a symptom (like no blogs, no docs, no nothing but real genuine news items voted on the by PMC allowed on the home page), but it won't solve the real problem.


What's wrong with the guidelines I proposed earlier in the thread?

Regards
Scott

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...
>>>
>>> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.
>>>
>>> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.
>>
>> My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects.
>>
>> While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it)
>
> You make this sound like a policy

I'm just referring to the ASF policy as for certain things not allowed on project sites.

-David

[Scott Gray-2]

On 16/03/2010, at 10:15 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...
>>>>
>>>> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.
>>>>
>>>> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.
>>>
>>> My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects.
>>>
>>> While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it)
>>
>> You make this sound like a policy
>
> I'm just referring to the ASF policy as for certain things not allowed on project sites.

Okay so there is a policy, that's great, let's use it.

Regards
Scott

[David E. Jones-2]

On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> On 16/03/2010, at 10:15 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...
>>>>>
>>>>> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.
>>>>
>>>> My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects.
>>>>
>>>> While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it)
>>>
>>> You make this sound like a policy
>>
>> I'm just referring to the ASF policy as for certain things not allowed on project sites.
>
> Okay so there is a policy, that's great, let's use it.

At risk of repeating myself: "While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it), but we have historically allowed linking to resources that are not part of OFBiz but that are about the project and add value for users and contributors."

I guess I'll have to spell it out more. Explicit marketing is not allowed, but various people and companies get around that by creating documentation and other resources that might be of interest to users of OFBiz and then posting links to those on the home page under the news section or other places in order to draw traffic to their sites, ie for marketing purposes.

Is that too harsh an accusation, or unclear enough that you need specific examples?

BTW, to be clear, I'm not complaining about people doing this. Others at the ASF probably disagree, but I think it's an acceptable way to contribute and get recognition.

I'm complaining about the hypocrisy and unwillingness to work with others and give people a chance. And yeah, I guess those are accusations as well. I guess I could now add another to the list: blinding defensiveness. I could go on all day... my mind was definitely corrupted by therapists when I was younger, and unfortunately I haven't forgotten all of that and in all of that I learned well the finer art of being an @$$hole.

In any case, I'm sorry if there's anything in your personal life that is making you touchy on this. I know that was the case for me after being in a circumstance similar to one you might be in right now, and if that's the case I don't envy you that position one bit.

-David

[Scott Gray-2]

On 16/03/2010, at 10:46 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:22 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2010, at 10:15 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 9:44 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 7:18 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:58 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> These front page issues are ones that I haven't seen the community have to deal with before so I have no idea how you might have dealt with it back when you were more involved.  I wasn't referring to the PMC Chair position as such, more so the general guidance that you used to provide on all things OFBiz and the weight that such guidance carried.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you feel that some of the links posted recently are perfectly acceptable then let's discuss that, otherwise I'm not really sure of the point you're trying to get across.
>>>>>
>>>>> My point is that we need to really do something, or we need to do nothing. We're getting into areas of marketing and promotion for community members, and that's a tough topic in a community driven primarily be contracting service providers. There are a few hobbyists that contribute to the project, but not a whole lot. There are a few product companies that do independent marketing that contribute, but not a whole lot. AFAIK that is pretty different from most ASF projects.
>>>>>
>>>>> While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it)
>>>>
>>>> You make this sound like a policy
>>>
>>> I'm just referring to the ASF policy as for certain things not allowed on project sites.
>>
>> Okay so there is a policy, that's great, let's use it.
>
> At risk of repeating myself: "While we don't allow blatant marketing on the official web site (it is allowed in the wiki, and we even have specific places for it), but we have historically allowed linking to resources that are not part of OFBiz but that are about the project and add value for users and contributors."
>
> I guess I'll have to spell it out more. Explicit marketing is not allowed, but various people and companies get around that by creating documentation and other resources that might be of interest to users of OFBiz and then posting links to those on the home page under the news section or other places in order to draw traffic to their sites, ie for marketing purposes.
>
> Is that too harsh an accusation, or unclear enough that you need specific examples?

Harsh, I wouldn't call it harsh.  I would even call it an accusation because I don't see the wrongdoing.

> BTW, to be clear, I'm not complaining about people doing this. Others at the ASF probably disagree, but I think it's an acceptable way to contribute and get recognition.

I guess you don't see it as wrongdoing either.

> I'm complaining about the hypocrisy and unwillingness to work with others and give people a chance.

Oh oh, you've lost me again. Now I'm going to need an example of hypocrisy and not giving people a chance.  If you choose to reply to nothing else in this email that's fine, but I would really appreciate some clarification here.

> And yeah, I guess those are accusations as well.

They most certainly are.

> I guess I could now add another to the list: blinding defensiveness.

I prefer to call it ongoing requests for clarification of your position.  I'm not attempting to defend anything, I'm just trying to understand what you're going on about because I genuinely didn't have any idea (although I'm almost beginning to understand, thank you for persevering in the face of my apparent blinding defensiveness).

> I could go on all day... my mind was definitely corrupted by therapists when I was younger, and unfortunately I haven't forgotten all of that and in all of that I learned well the finer art of being an @$$hole.

You are gifted there is no doubt about it :-)

> In any case, I'm sorry if there's anything in your personal life that is making you touchy on this.

I'm not touchy on it at all, we're just having a discussion.

> I know that was the case for me after being in a circumstance similar to one you might be in right now, and if that's the case I don't envy you that position one bit.

I'm starting to get the impression that you are the one who is touchy about something.  If that is the case then I'm sorry you feel that way and I hope it is not clouding your judgement.

Regards
Scott

[Adrian Crum]

David E Jones wrote:

> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with vetoes for this and that.
>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed elsewhere in this thread.
>>
>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>
> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role anyway...

There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
to describe.

Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.

Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
things are.

-Adrian

[BJ Freeman]

+1
when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for
guidance, so I could contribute correctly.
If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much.
I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz.

So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of
ofbiz.

=========================
BJ Freeman
http://bjfreeman.elance.com
Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>

Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist

Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
Linkedin
<http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>


Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM:

> David E Jones wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>
>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's
>>>> hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there
>>>> are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with
>>>> vetoes for this and that.
>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy
>>> is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed
>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>
>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative
>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend
>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>
>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even
>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than
>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that
>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was
>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role
>> anyway...
>
> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
> to describe.
>
> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.
>
> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
> things are.
>
> -Adrian
>

[David E. Jones-2]

I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot.

Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and in private emails.

I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending their clients my way to help "sell" OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake of recommending people or companies.

So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently experiencing.

That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around interfering with the same.

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:

> +1
> when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for
> guidance, so I could contribute correctly.
> If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much.
> I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz.
>
> So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of
> ofbiz.
>
> =========================
> BJ Freeman
> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>
> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>
> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
> Linkedin
> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>
>
> Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM:
>> David E Jones wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's
>>>>> hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there
>>>>> are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with
>>>>> vetoes for this and that.
>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy
>>>> is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed
>>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative
>>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend
>>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>
>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even
>>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than
>>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that
>>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was
>>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role
>>> anyway...
>>
>> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
>> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
>> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
>> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
>> to describe.
>>
>> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
>> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
>> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
>> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
>> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
>> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.
>>
>> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
>> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
>> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
>> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
>> things are.
>>
>> -Adrian
>>
>
>

[Scott Gray-2]

I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way and that you've been treated in the ways you describe below.  

I just want to say that I've read every single email you've written while I've been subscribed to the lists (and a pretty large number of the ones prior) and am immensely grateful for the knowledge you've shared with the community and for the contributions you've made.

Because of what you and Andrew started, I get to work on software that I love every day while solving all sorts of interesting business problems.

Regards
Scott

On 17/03/2010, at 7:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot.
>
> Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and in private emails.
>
> I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending their clients my way to help "sell" OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake of recommending people or companies.
>
> So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently experiencing.
>
> That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around interfering with the same.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>
>> +1
>> when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for
>> guidance, so I could contribute correctly.
>> If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much.
>> I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz.
>>
>> So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of
>> ofbiz.
>>
>> =========================
>> BJ Freeman
>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>
>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>
>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>> Linkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>>
>>
>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM:
>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's
>>>>>> hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there
>>>>>> are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with
>>>>>> vetoes for this and that.
>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy
>>>>> is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed
>>>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative
>>>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend
>>>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>
>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even
>>>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than
>>>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that
>>>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was
>>>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role
>>>> anyway...
>>>
>>> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
>>> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
>>> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
>>> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
>>> to describe.
>>>
>>> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
>>> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
>>> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
>>> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
>>> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
>>> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.
>>>
>>> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
>>> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
>>> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
>>> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
>>> things are.
>>>
>>> -Adrian
>>>
>>
>>
>

[David E. Jones-2]

Thanks Scott, I appreciate that. I hope you are able to continue enjoying it for a good long time.

-David


On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Scott Gray wrote:

> I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way and that you've been treated in the ways you describe below.  
>
> I just want to say that I've read every single email you've written while I've been subscribed to the lists (and a pretty large number of the ones prior) and am immensely grateful for the knowledge you've shared with the community and for the contributions you've made.
>
> Because of what you and Andrew started, I get to work on software that I love every day while solving all sorts of interesting business problems.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/03/2010, at 7:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>>
>> I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot.
>>
>> Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and in private emails.
>>
>> I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending their clients my way to help "sell" OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake of recommending people or companies.
>>
>> So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently experiencing.
>>
>> That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around interfering with the same.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>>> +1
>>> when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for
>>> guidance, so I could contribute correctly.
>>> If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much.
>>> I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz.
>>>
>>> So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of
>>> ofbiz.
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> Linkedin
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM:
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's
>>>>>>> hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there
>>>>>>> are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with
>>>>>>> vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy
>>>>>> is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed
>>>>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative
>>>>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend
>>>>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even
>>>>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than
>>>>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that
>>>>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was
>>>>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role
>>>>> anyway...
>>>>
>>>> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
>>>> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
>>>> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
>>>> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
>>>> to describe.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
>>>> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
>>>> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
>>>> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
>>>> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
>>>> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
>>>> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
>>>> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
>>>> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
>>>> things are.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Ruth Hoffman-2]

I agree with Scott.

David, I don't know where all this is coming from but if any of it ever
came from me, I sincerely apologize for all past (and future)
transgressions.

Regards,
Ruth

Scott Gray wrote:

> I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way and that you've been treated in the ways you describe below.  
>
> I just want to say that I've read every single email you've written while I've been subscribed to the lists (and a pretty large number of the ones prior) and am immensely grateful for the knowledge you've shared with the community and for the contributions you've made.
>
> Because of what you and Andrew started, I get to work on software that I love every day while solving all sorts of interesting business problems.
>
> Regards
> Scott
>
> On 17/03/2010, at 7:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>
>  
>> I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot.
>>
>> Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and in private emails.
>>
>> I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending their clients my way to help "sell" OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake of recommending people or companies.
>>
>> So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently experiencing.
>>
>> That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around interfering with the same.
>>
>> -David
>>
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>
>>    
>>> +1
>>> when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for
>>> guidance, so I could contribute correctly.
>>> If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much.
>>> I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz.
>>>
>>> So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of
>>> ofbiz.
>>>
>>> =========================
>>> BJ Freeman
>>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>
>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>
>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>> Linkedin
>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>>>
>>>
>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM:
>>>      
>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's
>>>>>>> hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there
>>>>>>> are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with
>>>>>>> vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>>>              
>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy
>>>>>> is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed
>>>>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative
>>>>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend
>>>>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>>>            
>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even
>>>>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than
>>>>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that
>>>>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was
>>>>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role
>>>>> anyway...
>>>>>          
>>>> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
>>>> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
>>>> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
>>>> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
>>>> to describe.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
>>>> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
>>>> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
>>>> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
>>>> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
>>>> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.
>>>>
>>>> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
>>>> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
>>>> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
>>>> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
>>>> things are.
>>>>
>>>> -Adrian
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>      
>
>  

[Anil Patel-3]

David,
I agree with Scott, If not all, I always try to read your emails on list.

Thanks and Regards
Anil Patel
HotWax Media Inc
Find us on the web at www.hotwaxmedia.com or Google Keyword "ofbiz"

On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:32 PM, David E Jones wrote:

>
> Thanks Scott, I appreciate that. I hope you are able to continue enjoying it for a good long time.
>
> -David
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:12 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>
>> I'm sincerely sorry you feel that way and that you've been treated in the ways you describe below.  
>>
>> I just want to say that I've read every single email you've written while I've been subscribed to the lists (and a pretty large number of the ones prior) and am immensely grateful for the knowledge you've shared with the community and for the contributions you've made.
>>
>> Because of what you and Andrew started, I get to work on software that I love every day while solving all sorts of interesting business problems.
>>
>> Regards
>> Scott
>>
>> On 17/03/2010, at 7:34 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I won't speak for Andrew, but I'm against this, a lot.
>>>
>>> Any advantage my contributions over time offers is more than cancelled out by suspicion of my motives, both now and in the past. This has resulted in all variety of personal attacks (usually based on an assumption of motives and ways of doing things) and resistance to anything I might propose. According to such I've intentionally made it hard for people to contribute things both now and even more a long while ago, and I've also made things intentionally difficult with OFBiz by design in order to make it harder for people to use it on their own in order drive business my way, and that's a small taste of the notions that continually come up on the mailing lists and in private emails.
>>>
>>> I'm tired of people calling me or emailing me privately to lay at my feet every imaginable problem and bug in OFBiz. I've had it with people sending their clients my way to help "sell" OFBiz when in fact it only costs me time and I get nothing positive out of it. Maybe I'm even more tired of prospective clients getting upset when I turn down there offers for piddling pay in exchange for brutal and risky work as if I can perform some miracle. And maybe it's even worse to have people constantly pinging me for referrals after a long history of things going very wrong when I have made the mistake of recommending people or companies.
>>>
>>> So sorry, but don't look to me. Dere's nuttin' I kin do 'round 'ere. I'm just the bad guy that set everyone up for the pain they're currently experiencing.
>>>
>>> That said, I don't think my invalidation is a bad thing for the community or the project at all. The community as a community of peers has to mature for the project to be successful and it's all the better if I'm not around interfering with the same.
>>>
>>> -David
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2010, at 10:41 AM, BJ Freeman wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> when I ask your opinion it was as I was learning and was looking for
>>>> guidance, so I could contribute correctly.
>>>> If you notice since we have had documentation, I have not ask that as much.
>>>> I respect you for the effort and thought you put into ofbiz.
>>>>
>>>> So a blurb about you and andy would seem appropriate as the founders of
>>>> ofbiz.
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> BJ Freeman
>>>> http://bjfreeman.elance.com
>>>> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93>
>>>> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/>
>>>>
>>>> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist
>>>>
>>>> Chat  Y! messenger: bjfr33man
>>>> Linkedin
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adrian Crum sent the following on 3/17/2010 8:21 AM:
>>>>> David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 16/03/2010, at 6:39 PM, David E Jones wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll admit I empathize with what Sharan is expressing here. It's
>>>>>>>> hard to do stuff, or know how to do stuff and what to do, when there
>>>>>>>> are a bunch of people responding with implied policies or with
>>>>>>>> vetoes for this and that.
>>>>>>> Well let's document it so everyone knows what the community policy
>>>>>>> is.  Please feel free to comment on the guidelines I proposed
>>>>>>> elsewhere in this thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've quite clearly stepped away from taking an administrative
>>>>>>> position within the community and it would be nice if we didn't spend
>>>>>>> too much time criticizing people who are trying to help fill that void.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, is that what's happening? I guess I missed that... I didn't even
>>>>>> realize there was an administrative void. Maybe it goes further than
>>>>>> that... when I was the PMC Chair maybe a lot of stuff went on that
>>>>>> needed more "administration" when I didn't think any interference was
>>>>>> necessary. Or, maybe that has nothing to do with the PMC Chair role
>>>>>> anyway...
>>>>>
>>>>> There is definitely a void of some kind. Your efforts to step back and
>>>>> take on a more passive role means something has changed in the
>>>>> community. If you're stepping back, then that implies you are stepping
>>>>> back from *something*. It's that *something* I believe Scott is trying
>>>>> to describe.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes people refer to you in discussions or sometimes they wait on a
>>>>> decision until they have heard from you and you are bothered by that. I
>>>>> don't think the community in general perceives you as someone in charge
>>>>> who has the final say. Instead, I think it is more of a recognition of
>>>>> the fact that you are one of the co-founders of the project, and a
>>>>> recognition of the tremendous contributions you have made over the years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Whether or not you possess a formal title, there will always be an
>>>>> implied one in this community because of who you are - not because some
>>>>> entity has bestowed it on you. Think of it as being an elder statesman.
>>>>> We understand you would rather not be in that position, but that's how
>>>>> things are.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Adrian
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>