Re: Discussing issues

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:

> Mark Vojkovich <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > > 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?
> > 
> >    Those are problems with the process or problems with the
> > perception of the process.  I have no problems with working on 
> > solving those.  Those, however, are not what Keith is talking about.
> > Keith is merely using those perceptions as arguments to support
> > his point of view.  Note that he's not trying to solve those
> > problems in XFree86, he's using them as arguments for why people
> > should dump the current governance.
> 
> Be careful about putting forth your perceptions about what someone else 
> is trying to do and casting them as 'facts'. You are not Keith, so you 
> have no right to state as fact what you percieve Keith's intentions are 
> (or anyone else for that matter).

    Feel free to present evidence that contradicts my statement.

> > > 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 object to project development direction being pushed by people
> > who aren't doing the development.  I think many people are
> > interested in changing governance just so that they can push
> > development direction even though they themselves would not be the
> > ones doing the work.  Surely, you can see some evidences of that
> > here? 
> 
> I fail to see any evidence of this here. This is after all an Open Source 
> project, and you of all people should know that nothing is going to get 
> done in this project based on what someone else feels is important. What 

   But that is what many people are demanding.  People claim that
the XFree86 project is not responsive to the needs of the community.
Which frequently translate into, XFree86 is not doing a very good job
of fulfilling their wish list.

> gets done is what someone else feels is important enough for them to do 
> themselves or *pay* someone in their own company to do (in the case of 
> corporate interests). The problem is being able to get the work you have 
> done actually incorporated into XFree86.

    That is a problem and needs to get fix.

> 
> If the process or governance of XFree86 change, the fact that you don't 
> work for any of the people who would like to define the direction of 
> XFree86 means no-one is going to be able to force you to work on stuff 
> they feel is important!
> 
> To me, clearly this issue is not about being able to "push development 
> direction even though they themselves would not be the ones doing the 
> work", but about being able to *do* stuff that they feel is important to 
> their interests and have it included in XFree86. They are not going to 
> force you or anyone else working in XFree86 to do any work for them, but 
> rather they will do the work themselves *provided* there is a way for 
> their work to actually get into the core XFree86 distribution. 

    I wish this were the core issue.  This is a valid issue that has
been discussed, and is the core issue to many people.  This is also
a solvable issue.  However, these issues aren't going to get solved
right now because there is a much more ominous issue that stands in the 
way, and that is the one of goverance that Keith and Jim have brought up.

   I would really like us to get to the bottom of the key issue
raised by the leaders of the disent and I would like us to stop wasting
time with side issues until we get that solved.  That is, is Keith
going to work with the XFree86 project, or is he going to start his
own project?  In my opinion, the governance of the XFree86 project
isn't something that's up for discussion.


> 
> >    While there are things that people have a right to demand - they
> > have a right to demand to be able to contribute - there are other
> > things that people are demanding that they do not have the right to
> > demand of volunteers.  In my opinion, agression stems from the appearence
> > that those people, who have nothing to vote with and having no positive
> > incentive to give developers, have resorted to threatening the very
> > existence of the project hoping that it will get them what they want.
> 
> Seriously now, exactly what demands have Keith, Jim et al been putting on 
> you such that you feel they are trying to force you to work on things for 
> them? My understanding from the outside looking in, is that all this 
> started because Keith wanted more flexibility in being able to work on 
> projects himself that *he* or *his employer* felt were important. 
> Specifically (I assume from what limited information we have seen of the 
> internal discussions) his own CVS tree with the ability to merge stuff 
> into the mainline tree easily. Nowhere have I seen any evidence of Keith 
> wishing to become a dictator and forcibly control what other XFree86 
> developers have to work on!
> 

   Kendall, you don't know what's going on.


			Mark.