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

[Jacopo Cappellato-4]

David,

all I have to say is that you are one of the two most important persons (the other one is my father) for my professional life.

Jacopo

On Mar 18, 2010, at 2:34 AM, 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
>>>
>>
>>
>

[rajsaini]

I think this is true for many of us. I always read end to end every
email from David, irrespective of the topic. In fact, in the mailing
list, I always look for the mails from David in hope to find something
new about OFBiz. It happened last week when we were struggling with
performance issues and a pointer about cache settings helped us a lot.
Thanks you David.

Regards,

Raj

Anil Patel wrote:

> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>>          
>
>
>