Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/10/13/04:14:51
On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Bert Timmerman (bert DOT timmerman AT xs4all DOT nl) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote:
> Running the long liner below
>
> git log --format='%aN' | sort -u | while read name; do echo -en "$name\t"; git
> log --author="$name" --pretty=tformat: --numstat | awk '{ add += $1; subs +=
> $2; loc += $1 - $2 } END { printf "added lines: %s, removed lines: %s, total
> lines: %s\n", add, subs, loc }' -; done
>
> |
> sums it up nicely ;-) although
>
> git shortlog -s -n
>
> would have done too.
>
> For me this is not about the quality or quantity of commits, lines added or
> removed.
> |
> For me things revolve around stability, reliability.
>
>
> Please do not misunderstand this for keeping a status quo, or a code/feature
> freeze or regulating progress.
>
> It's just that I'm not comfortable with the "revolution" model, where the
> "evolution" model could give less turmoil and more stability for the future.
>
> It's the references to "the other parties" and similar addressing that is
> bothering me, there was never a truly "us" in the conversations stated from
> Markus his part, at least that's how I received it.
>
> I don't know exactly "who" denied "what" to "whom", and if it was a "confirmed
> denial" or "not reacting" to a "driven" statement.
>
> This one of those subjects where *everything* needs to be discussed in the
> open, otherwise discussion over hidden agendas will flare up in the future.
>
> And we all should know what it *exactly* was, as to prevent this from
> happening ever again.
>
> And sadly, not everything is open for discussion in public, the Personal
> Identfication Number of my bank account for one, or the geda-project.org root
> password, or ...
>
> I think you can come up with a scenario or two when vulnerable data gets out
> in the open.
>
> Give you a clue: one single gEDA administrator named ... <name of the first
> person who grabs it> and all others administrators expelled.
>
> Same for my bank account.
>
> Now for the damage that has been done as I see it:
>
> 1) At least two driven and known developers lost for gEDA, maybe one of them
> turns around in a couple of years, or starts a fork to suit his ambitions.
>
> 2) A number of potential developers lost, probably scared off by this "feud",
> to be unknown to us for ever.
>
> 3) More care and energy needed in the future to embed new developers, we do
> not want to walk this line again.
>
> 4) Bad "reputation" for developers in the user base, more suspicion of "hidden
> agendas" (I think there are none, but then again some users have strong
> agendas too).
>
> 5) ... you may find more damages if you think hard enough.
>
> Resume: infights are *very* counter-productive.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Bert Timmerman.
>
> BTW: it takes two or more to have an infight.
>
> BTW2: you can't infight yourself alone.
>
It probably doesn't matter much, but I agree with most of these
considerations. While privacy should be respected, as much as possible
should be done in public. But please note: this alone doesn't solve the
communication problem, we often have intentional misinterpretations and
deaf conversations on the list. It may happen that we all see the same
initial message but there will be two or more groups forming around
different interpretations who then start big infights in which nobody
convinces anybody else. But still better if everyone can read the original
message than if the same thing happens about a hidden/assumed/implied
message.
Meanwhile I failed to follow where things progressed. I've read all
mail on the list but either there was info shared on other medium
or I failed to decode them all, so I'm a bit confused. What's the current
status? Is gedahead active? Or did everyone/everything move back under the
original admin team? Who are the two developers you refer to? Will the
next code sprint happen with gedahead or the original infrastructure?
Regards,
Igor2
- Raw text -