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
spam people on this list with all of this.
From: Charles Rhys
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011
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
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
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
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.
understand that Oracle acquired Sun, where Kohsuke was also paid to work on
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
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 with
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
[Hudson-Dev] Re: Questions re governance and control
|Jason van Zyl||02/24/2011|
|Jason van Zyl||02/24/2011|
|Henrik Lynggaard Hansen||02/24/2011|