[Opensim-dev] The notion of "core"

Tue Oct 20 11:33:31 UTC 2009

Just a FYI, after talking with Ryan further, I did mis-interpret his
statement as sarcastic when he didn't mean it that way.   So with
that, I'm sorry for taking up your time reading this.    This will
hopefully be the last e-mail on this thread.

Regards

Teravus

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 7:04 AM, Teravus Ovares <teravus at gmail.com> wrote:
> My message was in response to your sarcastic comment,
> "Thanks for all the information -- it makes one feel in the loop an
> having a voice."
>
> My point was that you're calling us on keeping people out of the loop
> when you don't also keep people in the loop.  I've been a part of the
> dev mailing list for some time now.  The dev list hasn't been asked to
> vote on the people who have commit on the realXtend server.
>
> A fork in git is an action that allows you to keep your own copy that
> you distribute.  Where you get your copy from is really irrelevant in
> a distributed source control management system.  The point is..   you
> manage what goes in to your copy and what doesn't.   This establishes
> that you have control over that 'fork'.     Once again, you can't
> claim that you don't have control over Taiga.   You can choose to
> merge or not.   You can even knit pick specific commits.
>
> "Also, since we have no reX-specific modification, it's more like an
> svn:external"
> Does that mean that you're no longer using Ogre mesh in the realXtend Server?
>
>>No, we use a web of trust system, ie. each current contributor gets to
>> decide on their own who gets commit access to SVN -- if we used git
>> even that distinction would become meaningless.
>
> We accept patches the same way.   The patches are reviewed by a core
> member, and committed as is appropriate.
> For example: here's a recent patch by Snowcrash that was committed by dahlia:
> http://opensimulator.org/viewgit/?a=commit&p=opensim&h=182693628ca1b81c90f3f0296418437eda406bb5
>
>
>> I think this is a case of not understanding what I'm talking about.
>> It's also not the first time you've done that to attack me publicly
>> even though you have my IM.
>
> I'm not attacking you publicly.  I'm simply saying that I don't think
> it's fair for you to call OpenSimulator core on 'keeping people out of
> the loop' when you're not 100% 'community inclusive'.   Come back and
> make that claim when you are.
>
>
>> You seem to have profoundly misunderstood my words yet again. I'm not
>> sure where you get "negative" from...
> It's possible.    However, when I receive advice like
>
>>In that case, unless core is comprised of lawyers, or confidential
>>legal advice is being directly quoted, it might be healthier to
>>discuss in public -- at least so it's readable by those who have a
>>stake in the community.
>
>>Every community/OSS book that mentions private lists for limited use,
>>in the next breath cautions against over-use.
>
> in an e-mail thread where you exclaim
>
> "
> Fourthly, the email is not just about one mailing list, it's about the
> entire concept of a monolithic core in open source, especially given
> we're on a DVCS like git. If core is not interested in examining
> itself as it grows, then so be it.
> "
>
> Is it any wonder that I interpret the next statement, "Thanks for all
> the information -- it makes one feel in the loop an
> having a voice.", sarcastically?
>
> Regards
>
> Teravus
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 6:29 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempuki1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Teravus Ovares <teravus at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> You seem to have some negative feelings about us.   You have your own
>>
>> You seem to have profoundly misunderstood my words yet again. I'm not
>> sure where you get "negative" from...
>>
>>> fork though that you manage..   called Taiga.   Are you saying that
>>
>> Taiga is comprised of OpenSim (although we now track JHurliman's
>> branch of ScienceSim), cable beach, and ModreX.
>>
>> Given JHurliman's branch of opensim is a temporary git branch, calling
>> it a fork is quite a stretch. In fact it's quite my point that "fork"
>> is meaningless with DVCS.
>>
>> Also, since we have no reX-specific modification, it's more like an
>> svn:external.
>>
>>> you involve the community for all decisions about Taiga including who
>>> gets commit rights?    I seriously doubt it.
>>
>> No, we use a web of trust system, ie. each current contributor gets to
>> decide on their own who gets commit access to SVN -- if we used git
>> even that distinction would become meaningless.
>>
>> Ie, if you want commit access -- let me know, I'll set you up asap.
>>
>>> This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
>>
>> I think this is a case of not understanding what I'm talking about.
>> It's also not the first time you've done that to attack me publicly
>> even though you have my IM.
>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Teravus
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:30 AM, Ryan McDougall <sempuki1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Dr Scofield <DrScofield at xyzzyxyzzy.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan McDougall wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Frisby, Adam <adam at deepthink.com.au> wrote:
>>>>>>> I disagree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * Commit Rights - those discussions cannot occur in public (although the discussion archives are open to committers after being invited), the reason for this is no-one can be frank & honest without hurting people's feelings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Firstly, I did waive discussion for commit access. I also waive money
>>>>>> and legal matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Secondly, I disagree with the logic of the link, as it's premised
>>>>>> entirely on being honest might hurt someone's feelings. Honesty is not
>>>>>> a function of secrecy.
>>>>>
>>>>> i think honesty can be a facilitated by a discussion remaining confidential.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And the case of "there was a long drawn out
>>>>>> discussion about me in which I was not able to represent my myself"
>>>>>> causing hurt feelings is not considered.
>>>>>
>>>>> i can see that point, but i can also see the points made by adam respectively
>>>>> the points made in the F/OSS guidebook --- in balance (my personal one) i'd
>>>>> rather have core committers discuss whether i should have voting rights in private.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thirdly, I don't think snowcrash thing is about giving him commit
>>>>>> access. I don't think things are as neatly compartmentalized as is
>>>>>> told (though I could be wrong, it's hard to guess from a secret
>>>>>> mailing list).
>>>>>
>>>>> no, you are right on that one. it's a discussion about our understanding of
>>>>> licensing issues and whether there is indeed an issue here or not.
>>>>
>>>> In that case, unless core is comprised of lawyers, or confidential
>>>> legal advice is being directly quoted, it might be healthier to
>>>> discuss in public -- at least so it's readable by those who have a
>>>> stake in the community.
>>>>
>>>> Every community/OSS book that mentions private lists for limited use,
>>>> in the next breath cautions against over-use.
>>>>
>>>>> re compartmentalized: they are, at least we try very hard to.
>>>>>
>>>>>        DrS
>>>>> --
>>>>> dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
>>>>> SL: dr scofield ---- drscofield at xyzzyxyzzy.net ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
>>>>> RL: hud at zurich.ibm.com - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for all the information -- it makes one feel in the loop an
>>>> having a voice.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-dev mailing list
>> Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>>
>