Re: Discussing issues

On Mon, Apr 14, 2003 at 06:48:05PM -0400, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
# On Mon, 14 Apr 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
# 
# > So you have no problem with Keith just getting on with XKeith86 in
# > fact ?
# 
#    Lets cut the crap here.  If people were just complaining about
# process problems, then those things can be solved.  Keith is
# calling for "community governace".  From my point of view that
# looks like he, and moreso, Jim, are advocating removing direction
# of XFree86 out of the hands of the people who have contributed the
# most to it and into the hands of the people who rely the most on it.

I've been lurking on this list for quite a while. I've been an
on-again off-again member of Xpert over the years and I realize
this is a complex issue. However, I think that making a phrase like
"out of the hands of the people who have contributed the most to it"
is exactly what's wrong here.

Of course you guys have contributed the most to it. 

You were the only ones who could.

Now I have read various messages from the XFree86 Core Team which
state that there have been lots of people who have contributed to
XFree86 over the years. Sure, there are lots of people who tried and
a select few who succeeded in contributing, but those who didn't were
met with silence. Not "Hey, thanks for the patch, but it wasn't really
up to our standards and here are a few things you could do to fix it
up..." but silence. Silence is a killer in an open source project.

I read Mr. Dawes talking about his experience with the Linux kernel
and, perhaps, you guys are so flooded with patches that you don't have
time to personally reply to each one. I don't think that was the case.
I certainly could be wrong.

(I also read Mr. Dawes' comparison of the scope of XFree86 to that
of the Linux kernel, but I think he failed to compare the frequency
of Linux kernel releases to that of his similarly-scoped project.)

However, it seems like there are a lot of very large, very complex
open source projects that have a very active and very open development
environment that XFree86 doesn't seem to have. This point has been
belabored on this list several times, and as best I can tell the
standard response is "There is no problem, we're just as open as
everyone else." If that's the case, why was this list created, and
why do so many people have such a skewed perspective?

I admire the spirit of forming this mailing list and allowing folks
to air their feelings, but, after reading this list for the past
few weeks, I think that the main agenda here is to endlessly reword
"There aren't any problems." / "Keith sucks."

I have no idea if Keith sucks or not, nor do I know his actions or
his motives, so I'll leave that one be.

I do know that you've had a flood of people here who, whether they
understand the issues or not, are very very frustrated with XFree86's
processes and possibly its governance. I say possibly because I think
for most people it's difficult to separate between the two.


# I think this is unprecedented in the open source world, and from
# my point of view (as a significant contributor) I find it 
# immoral.  I can hardly understand why Keith and Jim, developers
# themselves, would be advocating such a thing unless they were
# certain that they would be at the head of this new governance.

According to messages you've sent to this list anyone who submits
patches determines the direction of XFree86. No one, save your boss,
is going to tell you what you have to work on, so what does it matter
if the community governs the project? You can still submit the same
patches. You will still choose what you want to work on.

I'm not blind to your point, which, if I understand it correctly,
is one of principle. I can assume that you've worked hard on XFree86,
as have the other members of the Core Team and the BOD, and you feel a
certain ownership of the project. I can certainly empathize with that
feeling, but I'm not sure who it serves to honor that feeling. Do you
feel that it serves the XFree86 application stack? Or does it serve 
the XFree86 team? I'm honestly asking and I've done my best to remove
bias from the wording.

The only things I know about the XFree86 governance are the things that
I've read on this list, and none of them were very illuminating. Is
it simply the principle that is so important about who governs this
project, or are there concrete things that you feel would suffer in
the hands of community governance?

I know you've stated that you feel the level of quality would suffer,
but that's all perspective, right? If all the Core Team ever did was
review patches and make them better, along with helping to educate
contributing developers, I can't see how the quality would suffer for
too long.


#   I've stated this to other people before, but perhaps not here, 
# so I'll say it now.  I will not work for an X-server project
# who's agenda is set by people who are merely vested interests.

I'm honestly not trying to be a smart-ass when I ask, aren't you
doing that now?


#    I do not speak for the XFree86 core when I say this, but in
# my opinion I think if Keith wants this form of "governance"
# he's going to have to start his own project. 
# 
#    Many people on this list have viewed resistence to Keith as
# one of resistence to fixing broken things in XFree86's processes.
# This is not the case.  The XFree86 project wants to fix problems
# with the processes, but the overshadowing problem is one of 
# Keith's absurd assertions about how the XFree86 project should
# be run and this is preventing things from coming to a conclusion
# because the perception is that even if we fix the processes,
# Keith is still going to be making threats as long as he's not
# in charge.

For me, it's difficult to believe that XFree86 wants to solve
its procedural problems when I read aggressive/defensive language,
like that of your message, being continually sent to this list from
the Core Team.  I realize that feelings were hurt, so that probably
accounts for some of it, but really, after however long that this list
has been around, what's changed in terms of the XFree86 procedures?

-Sam