[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. :)
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.
> From: Charles 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
> 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
> 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
> 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,
> to me as a member of the community, there's still much for Winston to
> 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
> 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
> 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
> about an important decision, it could cause confusion about the decision
> making process. For a second, I thought Winston and Jason D ended up
> 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
> Hudson from May 2008
> 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
> The fact that Oracle
> acquired Sun really didn't mean that you're entitled to Hudson community.
> _can't_ just install someone as a co-owner of an open source community
> history longer than your involvement in the community
> I'm sure you already
> know that the Hudson community is not a corporation that can be acquired,
> installing a co-owner just like that doesn't sound like a great
> governance to