RE: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

RE: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Armbrust, Daniel C.]

Harold, 

I have been lurking on this list for a while now.  I don't know much about XFree86, or the politics, or any history.  But I read the threads that led up to your decision.  I applaud you.  You asked for something completely reasonable, and (pardon the language) David Dawes came off as a complete jackass.  

I have worked with Jakarta Ant, the Eclipse Project, and Jakarta Lucene to varying degrees.  And I have never seen someone on any of those mailing lists get treated like you were.  And, as an example of a well functioning open source project, when someone new came to lucene, he turned in some quality patches over the course of about a month.  About the equivalent to what I see you commit on this mailing list in a week.  And they made him a full fledged committer.  No problems, no insults, no lie detector tests.  They voted, and it was done.

That it how it is supposed to work.  

The XFree86 organization looks like it is being run by a bunch of power hungry fools.

Thanks for all of your time and work, 

Dan

Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Harold L Hunt II]

Daniel,

Armbrust, Daniel C. wrote:

> Harold, 
> 
> I have been lurking on this list for a while now.  I don't know much about XFree86, or the politics, or any history.  But I read the threads that led up to your decision.  I applaud you.  You asked for something completely reasonable, and (pardon the language) David Dawes came off as a complete jackass.  
> 
> I have worked with Jakarta Ant, the Eclipse Project, and Jakarta Lucene to varying degrees.  And I have never seen someone on any of those mailing lists get treated like you were.  And, as an example of a well functioning open source project, when someone new came to lucene, he turned in some quality patches over the course of about a month.  About the equivalent to what I see you commit on this mailing list in a week.  And they made him a full fledged committer.  No problems, no insults, no lie detector tests.  They voted, and it was done.
> 
> That it how it is supposed to work.  
> 
> The XFree86 organization looks like it is being run by a bunch of power hungry fools.
> 
> Thanks for all of your time and work, 

No problem.  I enjoy it.

Thanks for your support.

Harold

Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Jason Dufair]

I'll also chime in as a lurker to say that you have kicked some major
ass for us Cygwin/XFree86 users, Harold, and I think you've been nothing
but helpful and responsive on the list.  I think your plea on the
XFree86 list was reasonable.  Good luck as you explore other options.

Harold L Hunt II <huntharo@msu.edu> writes:

> Egbert,
>
> Egbert Eich wrote:
>
>> Harold,
>> I find it sad that you had to make this decision.
>> I've just been absent for a little more than two weeks and
>> was unable to commit patches - look what came out of it.
>
> Egbert, I am sorry, I want to make it absolutely clear that my raising
> the issue with XFree86.org and subsequent decision had nothing to do
> with you.  You were actually a great help to me, I appreciate the work
> that you did with me very much.  There was a larger problem
> here... one that had nothing to do with you.
>
>> I understand that the level of frustration among contributors
>> has risen to a point that people are starting to use bad words.
>> I've tried to get support from individual core team members
>> for giving you commit rights. After I was unable to do so (maybe
>> I asked the wrong ones) I decided to no longer persue the issue.
>> None of the initiatives I've made so far have been accepted.
>
> I appreciate that Egbert.  That really gets to the heart of the
> matter: this isn't about cvs commit access, this is about the
> arbitrary, subjective, and unresponsive manner in which the project is
> being managed.
>
>> I don't understand why people cannot deal with issues on the
>> pragmatic level by looking at how one can best distribute
>> the workload so that the burdeon on each individual volunteer
>> is reduced.
>
> I really wish they could have seen that too.
>
>> The discussion always turns to who owes what to whom. This is
>> the wrong question. All or most of us are volunteers. Therefore
>> noone owes anything to anybody.
>> I get more and more the impression that David is working on
>> narrowing down the scope of XFree86. There are alternatives in sight
>> and I hope something will be in place before too long that will
>> again serve a place where
>> people interested in X can meet and work together.
>
> Yes, I am beginning to work with some other developers who have left
> XFree86.org as well.  It is so unfortunate that XFree86.org is pushing
> away developers one-by-one, only to assemble the same group
> elsewhere. That is a pointless waste of time; that sort of thing
> should not have to happen.
>
> I was a little surprised too to see that my request was interpreted as
> being owed something :)  Jeez, not only is the process of getting cvs
> commit access undefined, it is a veritable mine field; you cannot
> possibly ask in a humble enough manner for their taste.
>
> Anyhow, I want to reiterate again that I enjoy working with you Egbert
> and that I hope we continue to work together in the future.
>
> Thanks for your input,
>
> Harold

-- 
Jason Dufair - jase@dufair.org
http://www.dufair.org/
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
-- Groucho Marx

Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Harold L Hunt II]

Egbert,

Egbert Eich wrote:

> Harold,
> 
> I find it sad that you had to make this decision.
> I've just been absent for a little more than two weeks and
> was unable to commit patches - look what came out of it.

Egbert, I am sorry, I want to make it absolutely clear that my raising 
the issue with XFree86.org and subsequent decision had nothing to do 
with you.  You were actually a great help to me, I appreciate the work 
that you did with me very much.  There was a larger problem here... one 
that had nothing to do with you.

> I understand that the level of frustration among contributors
> has risen to a point that people are starting to use bad words.
> I've tried to get support from individual core team members
> for giving you commit rights. After I was unable to do so (maybe
> I asked the wrong ones) I decided to no longer persue the issue.
> None of the initiatives I've made so far have been accepted.

I appreciate that Egbert.  That really gets to the heart of the matter: 
this isn't about cvs commit access, this is about the arbitrary, 
subjective, and unresponsive manner in which the project is being managed.

> I don't understand why people cannot deal with issues on the
> pragmatic level by looking at how one can best distribute
> the workload so that the burdeon on each individual volunteer
> is reduced.

I really wish they could have seen that too.

> The discussion always turns to who owes what to whom. This is
> the wrong question. All or most of us are volunteers. Therefore
> noone owes anything to anybody.
> I get more and more the impression that David is working on
> narrowing down the scope of XFree86. 
> There are alternatives in sight and I hope something will be 
> in place before too long that will again serve a place where
> people interested in X can meet and work together.

Yes, I am beginning to work with some other developers who have left 
XFree86.org as well.  It is so unfortunate that XFree86.org is pushing 
away developers one-by-one, only to assemble the same group elsewhere. 
That is a pointless waste of time; that sort of thing should not have to 
happen.

I was a little surprised too to see that my request was interpreted as 
being owed something :)  Jeez, not only is the process of getting cvs 
commit access undefined, it is a veritable mine field; you cannot 
possibly ask in a humble enough manner for their taste.

Anyhow, I want to reiterate again that I enjoy working with you Egbert 
and that I hope we continue to work together in the future.

Thanks for your input,

Harold

Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Egbert Eich]

Harold,

I find it sad that you had to make this decision.
I've just been absent for a little more than two weeks and
was unable to commit patches - look what came out of it.

I understand that the level of frustration among contributors
has risen to a point that people are starting to use bad words.
I've tried to get support from individual core team members
for giving you commit rights. After I was unable to do so (maybe
I asked the wrong ones) I decided to no longer persue the issue.
None of the initiatives I've made so far have been accepted.

I don't understand why people cannot deal with issues on the
pragmatic level by looking at how one can best distribute
the workload so that the burdeon on each individual volunteer
is reduced.
The discussion always turns to who owes what to whom. This is
the wrong question. All or most of us are volunteers. Therefore
noone owes anything to anybody.
I get more and more the impression that David is working on
narrowing down the scope of XFree86. 
There are alternatives in sight and I hope something will be 
in place before too long that will again serve a place where
people interested in X can meet and work together.

Cheers,
	Egbert.

Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Harold L Hunt II]

Alan Hourihane wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:35:20AM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 
>>6) Alternatives are being evaluated for hosting Cygwin/XFree86 code in 
>>CVS.  Hosts that can provide CVS commit access for at least five 
>>Cygwin/XFree86 developers will be given priority.
> 
> 
> Harold,
> 
> I thought you already had the CVS for Cygwin/XFree86 sorted out, by
> using what you'd already setup in http://sf.net/projects/xoncygwin ?

It is something I am looking into.

It all depends on if we want to have to import and maintain the clients.

> You and Alexander Gottwald (and myself) have already been using this for
> quite some time now. Couldn't you give Kensuke et al commit access there rather 
> than seeking out yet another repository ?

Looking into it.

Harold

Re: Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Alan Hourihane]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 11:35:20AM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote:
> 6) Alternatives are being evaluated for hosting Cygwin/XFree86 code in 
> CVS.  Hosts that can provide CVS commit access for at least five 
> Cygwin/XFree86 developers will be given priority.

Harold,

I thought you already had the CVS for Cygwin/XFree86 sorted out, by
using what you'd already setup in http://sf.net/projects/xoncygwin ?

You and Alexander Gottwald (and myself) have already been using this for
quite some time now. Couldn't you give Kensuke et al commit access there rather 
than seeking out yet another repository ?

Alan.

Cygwin/XFree86 - No longer associated with XFree86.org

[Harold L Hunt II]

It seems that David Dawes has made his decision not to let the 
Cygwin/XFree86 project commit patches directly to the XFree86.org CVS 
tree; he doesn't seem to want to go on record saying this, but he has 
written several messages during this discussion about ftp servers, cvs 
servers, etc., while making no attempt to provide a direct answer to my 
question.  Had he intended otherwise he could have easily said, "Gotta 
wait until the next board meeting", or "Sorry, server died, gonna have 
to wait a couple days".  I can only interpret his ignoring the issue as 
a passive refusal to grant Cygwin/XFree86 CVS commit access.

In the interests of providing a more open development model, the 
Cygwin/XFree86 project will no longer be maintaining code in the 
XFree86.org CVS tree.  Maintaining code in XFree86.org's CVS tree 
provides little benefit in relation to the amount of time required to do 
so; XFree86.org is passively unwilling to work with Cygwin/XFree86 to 
reduce the amount of time required.


What this means for Cygwin/XFree86 users and developers
=======================================================
1) No major changes to the files currently distributed with 
Cygwin/XFree86 for at least a month.

2) The Cygwin/XFree86 mailing lists and project pages will stay at 
cygwin.com.

3) Builds will continue to be made from the 4.3.0 snapshot, patched with 
the latest Cygwin/XFree86 patches.

4) A 4.4.0 snapshot may be pulled to make builds from.

5) Patches for Cygwin-specific code will no longer be sent to 
XFree86.org.  Non Cygwin-specific patches should still be sent, to be 
dealt with as XFree86 pleases.

6) Alternatives are being evaluated for hosting Cygwin/XFree86 code in 
CVS.  Hosts that can provide CVS commit access for at least five 
Cygwin/XFree86 developers will be given priority.


What this means for Cygwin
==========================
Nothing.  Nada.  Zilch.  They were not involved in this at all.


What this means for XFree86
===========================
Some will say nothing.  Some will say good riddance.  Some will say this 
is the beginning of the end.  Who knows?  Who cares?  Let /. figure it out.


Harold