Re: Discussing issues

On Tue, 15 Apr 2003, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 06:07:39PM -0400, Mark Vojkovich wrote:
> > > When I say "working" I mean in terms of results. One metric is how
> > > efficiently the technical aspects of the project are moving; are all
> > > submodules covered; is there steady progress; do bugs/patches get
> > > handled in a timely fashion. Another metric is whether the project is
> > > able to handle personality conflicts or issues such as company
> > > involvement without creating technical problems or endless
> > > distraction. Does the organization have confidence that it is fair,
> > > and that a company can't override the fairness? Another metric is
> > > whether non-code contributors such as docs, i18n, bugzilla triagers,
> > > web site maintainers, etc. are effectively used. Another is ability to
> > > make and execute shared decisions such as releases. A key
> > > XFree86-specific metric for me is whether it's driving much-needed new
> > > library APIs and extensions in a convincing fashion, as that's my pet
> > > agenda. And so on, you can think of lots of stuff, much of it has been
> > > brought up. XFree86 is good on some metrics and bad on others.
> > 
> >    While I hope you don't mean it as such, this does sound like
> > you expecting XFree86 to take up your agenda and then you being
> > disappointed that it didn't happen.
> > 
> >    You do agree that people don't have a right to expect XFree86
> > to do that don't you?  If so, then why is it a key metric for
> > you that they do?
> 
> Well, earlier I wrote up my little "ethics of free software
> maintenance" if you want to know how I view my own obligations and
> those of others.
> 
> See this mail:
> 
>    http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000451.html
> 
> Specifically this excerpt:
> 
>    If XFree86 covers the community interest "Foo," then we (entire
>    free software community) have a right to expect XFree86 to make
>    certain efforts in that area. XFree86 "owns" that area and has
>    responsibilities there to do certain maintainer duties, or step
>    aside and let someone else do them. If XFree86 does not cover
>    "Foo," then XFree86 has every right to say "screw off, do that
>    yourself" - but the community also has every right to in fact do it
>    themselves. ;-)
> 
>    In short, maintainers have an obligation not to complain about
>    forks anytime they stand in the way. Standing in the way can be
>    active ("no, I won't take patches for that") and also inactive ("I
>    don't have time to review patches/discuss this issue/whatever").
> 
> If you guys want to be the community resource that "owns" X11 and
> surrounding technology, then I think you have to accept some
> obligation to do it well - which doesn't just mean everyone writing
> good code in isolation, but also taking responsibility for the overall
> results. For better or worse, the overall results include nontechnical
> issues.
> 
> If you own X11 and surrounding technology, I think it's fair game
> for people to comment on how you're doing. (Especially since you asked
> - http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/000001.html)
> 
> If you think about it, the alternative to commenting on how you're
> doing, and saying what agenda I have, would be to silently get fed up
> and look at a different project to provide what I'm looking for (which
> is something like "a standard X platform for general-purpose graphical
> workstations").
> 
> In my view, it's a fairer course of action to go ahead and say you
> guys could do better in area XYZ, here's why, etc., and discuss that,
> than to silently drop my support with no warning.

   XFree86 has never claimed to own X11.  I don't believe XFree86
has ever desired to be any more than the best X11 implementation that
it can be given the limited resources.  So given that, I think you
have no basis for demanding these things of the XFree86 project. 


			Mark.