Skip to main content

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

  • From: Richard Bywater <rbywater@...>
  • To: "dev@..." <dev@...>
  • Subject: [Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control
  • Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:26:18 +1300
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oNn0t2UUPZvEP6wB2q9+GbHhyAnfvSsWSxlojJvignkr2qKX+3/otRanDsHmcsvMYC ra2xvaTwQk5wvWSa/jmGQt4CpQWjimUGYkgQsxR17wSzeqtf6svHu+0xKcRaEwOow1e0 AGXZYC1dj6XBmvu97CQgqHBPbn+JP+KuaEWaI=

Well personally I'm enjoying this healthy debate. :)

Richard.

On Friday, February 25, 2011, Ted Farrell <ted.farrell@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Charles, again I think we are way off topic here and covering
> ground that has been covered.  It seems we disagree about who should be
> consulted about changes and a couple of other points.  I would be happy to
> discuss with you off-thread if you want, but I don't think we should 
> continue to
> spam people on this list with all of this.
>
>     -ted
>
>
>
>   From: Charles Rhys
>   [mailto:chuck.rhys@...]
> Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011
>   3:13 AM
> To: dev@...
> Subject: [Hudson-Dev] Re:
>   Questions re governance and control
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   First of all, thanks for the detailed
>   explanations.
>
>
>   Winston was the co-owner of the Hudson project.
>   Yet he was not involved in any of the decisions.  He also works in the
>   same org as the people doing the java.net migration (not the people who 
> sent
>   the email however) so he could have coordinated the impact of the
>   java.net migration and provided the information needed to make an
>   educated decision.  He was not consulted at all.  No
>   email.  No call.  No response to emails we sent asking
>   what was going on.  Nothing.  There was also a lot of other
>   things going on that raised our concerns around the motivations of all of
>   this, but I really don't want to go deeper into that.  I would
>   rather spend our efforts focused on the software and users.
>
>
> This is also something that
>   leaves a question mark for me.
>
> Being someone who has been part of the
>   Hudson community since 2008, in all honesty, I couldn't simply accept the 
> fact
>   that someone (Winston or not) could become a co-owner of a project 
> without any
>   credible history within the project.
> You have to rise through the rank. I
>   don't doubt that Winston is talented but his contribution to Hudson wasn't
>   that much yet to warrant a real co-owner credibility.
>
> I understand that
>   perhaps you guys have talked it out and agreed on the co-owner positions, 
> but
>   to me as a member of the community, there's still much for Winston to 
> proof.
>   Yes, I've read his documentation contribution, thanks very much Winston 
> :).
>   But as a co-owner you need to proof it that you can carry the trust of the
>   community.
>
> Winston already
>   started by making a mistake of using GitHub as canonical repo without
>   consulting the community, he admitted it was a mistake. So far it's not a
>   great start. Don't forget the other thread where he didn't agree with 
> Jason
>   Dillon's proposal about making hudson.model.Hudson final. I understand it
>   could be an honest mistake, but by not responding to such simple email 
> thread
>   about an important decision, it could cause confusion about the decision
>   making process. For a second, I thought Winston and Jason D ended up 
> talking
>   privately via IM or something.
> Now, I'm willing to give Winston the benefit
>   of the doubt, but so far not so good.
>
>
>   I fully
>   understand that Oracle acquired Sun, where Kohsuke was also paid to work 
> on
>   Hudson from May 2008 
> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/2008/05/29/ill-be-spending-more-time-hudson-going-forward,
>   but let's not forget that Kohsuke's contribution to Hudson went beyond his
>   work hours (check the commit log), and also let's not forget the fact 
> that he
>   started the project in 2004 and worked on it outside of work hours for 4
>   years.
>   The fact that Oracle
>   acquired Sun really didn't mean that you're entitled to Hudson community. 
> You
>   _can't_ just install someone as a co-owner of an open source community 
> with
>   history longer than your involvement in the community
>   itself.
>
>
>   I'm sure you already
>   know that the Hudson community is not a corporation that can be acquired, 
> so
>   installing a co-owner just like that doesn't sound like a great 
> governance to
>   me.
>
>


[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

James Nord 02/24/2011

<Possible follow-up(s)>

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Charles Rhys 02/24/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Ted Farrell 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Charles Rhys 02/26/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Ted Farrell 02/26/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Ted Farrell 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Richard Bywater 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Vincent Latombe 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Jaanek Oja 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Joe Bowbeer 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Winston Prakash 02/25/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Charles Rhys 02/26/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

teilo 02/24/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Jason van Zyl 02/24/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

James Nord 02/24/2011

[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control

Jason van Zyl 02/24/2011

[Hudson-Dev] PLugins and changes in Jenkins Core [was Re: Questions re governance and control]

James Nord 02/28/2011
 
 
Close
loading
Please Confirm
Close