Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Kindred
76
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 12th, 2013, 05:20 AM »
Suki,
as far as I know, I have not changed my tune at all. I may have expressed it more clearly here because there is less baggage involved... but the plan that I suggested above has been my intention to express all along. Some of it probably got lost in the accusations and other crap.
I never said that "I know exactly how you think and act".
I said that despite accusations to the contrary, I do understand developers.
(and actually no... you are wrong. paid devs and open source devs are not actually very different. The main difference is that paid devs have to worry about targets because they lose their jobs if they miss too many dates. Open Source devs on the other hand do it because they want to. (see I do understand the difference). What you don't seem to get is that the entire attitude behind a developer is pretty much the same - paid or volunteer.
What I don't understand is not the devs specifically, but the accusations and crap slung by certain former devs despite the fact that I can not actually seem to find one instance where anyone told them what to do or how to code or forced them to code anything.
And no... at this point, I am not acting as someone in charge. I am acting like someone who thinks he might have some ideas and can express them without being perceived as forcing them on anyone since I have no power to enforce them. Some people on the team listen to me because of the former position I held... but I make no pretense to have any power.
My call to the team suggesting new devs did not have anything to do with getting devs "to work under me" but rather getting some devs who would work WITH the team (at the time I hoped with Spuds and emanuele)
And finally... I never, ever ever tried to take ANY credit for 2.1. **ALL** of that credit goes to emanuele and spuds (with some to you as well). I have been saying THAT from day 1 ever since they stood up to Norv and said "yes, we need a 2.1 release and we'll do it".
So I am not sure what grudge you have against me... but chill out. I have been frustrated with you and your attitude at times, but I have never called you one of the gits or poison people or anything of the sort. I am not patronizing. I happen to be blunt and unpolitic... yup most certainly. I call things as I see them (which may or may not be correct and may or may not be as you see them) and I do not mince words. Actually, Arantor and I are actually fairly similar in that. :P
Don't assume that bluntness = patronizing, because it does not and was not in my case.
as far as I know, I have not changed my tune at all. I may have expressed it more clearly here because there is less baggage involved... but the plan that I suggested above has been my intention to express all along. Some of it probably got lost in the accusations and other crap.
I never said that "I know exactly how you think and act".
I said that despite accusations to the contrary, I do understand developers.
(and actually no... you are wrong. paid devs and open source devs are not actually very different. The main difference is that paid devs have to worry about targets because they lose their jobs if they miss too many dates. Open Source devs on the other hand do it because they want to. (see I do understand the difference). What you don't seem to get is that the entire attitude behind a developer is pretty much the same - paid or volunteer.
What I don't understand is not the devs specifically, but the accusations and crap slung by certain former devs despite the fact that I can not actually seem to find one instance where anyone told them what to do or how to code or forced them to code anything.
And no... at this point, I am not acting as someone in charge. I am acting like someone who thinks he might have some ideas and can express them without being perceived as forcing them on anyone since I have no power to enforce them. Some people on the team listen to me because of the former position I held... but I make no pretense to have any power.
My call to the team suggesting new devs did not have anything to do with getting devs "to work under me" but rather getting some devs who would work WITH the team (at the time I hoped with Spuds and emanuele)
And finally... I never, ever ever tried to take ANY credit for 2.1. **ALL** of that credit goes to emanuele and spuds (with some to you as well). I have been saying THAT from day 1 ever since they stood up to Norv and said "yes, we need a 2.1 release and we'll do it".
So I am not sure what grudge you have against me... but chill out. I have been frustrated with you and your attitude at times, but I have never called you one of the gits or poison people or anything of the sort. I am not patronizing. I happen to be blunt and unpolitic... yup most certainly. I call things as I see them (which may or may not be correct and may or may not be as you see them) and I do not mince words. Actually, Arantor and I are actually fairly similar in that. :P
Don't assume that bluntness = patronizing, because it does not and was not in my case.
77
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 12th, 2013, 02:40 AM »
do note Suki.... my main point was not the "over ego crap" that was the lead in to:
... or (which is more likely) the whole thing is based on a series of misunderstandings and overreactions which folks are either too embarrassed or too stubborn to discuss.
And as for running it like a corporation, you are actually mistaken there (and I never called YOU a poisonous personality, afaik)
we run SM like a corporation (because, it is) and the project gets run as a project. That's what you seem to have always failed to see - the separation between the project and the corporation. (and that's what I always saw you getting upset about, actually - in your confusion, you assumed that corporate crap was aimed at you - when it never actually was.)
When the whole Norv thing imploded, I didn't approach anyone. I raised the issue or what happened as an issue - but I'm not in charge any more (thank gods) and I let those who are in charge deal with it (poorly, as it turns out, but that can hardly be blamed on me)
As for "true open source path" and "control"... did you even both to read my actual posts? What I laid out was not about control in any way, shape or form... it was about giving the people on the dev team the room they need while still giving the rest of the team the voice that they crave (without interfering with the actual development) Where the FUCK is the control in that?
and Arantor... I think that way about the devs because the batch of devs we had prior to Spuds, emanuele and Suki did state exactly that... Actually, even one of the recent devs (IchBin) said exactly that. I have always held up Spuds, emanuele (and to a lesser extent Suki) as models of how the devs can and should work with the team(s).
... or (which is more likely) the whole thing is based on a series of misunderstandings and overreactions which folks are either too embarrassed or too stubborn to discuss.
And as for running it like a corporation, you are actually mistaken there (and I never called YOU a poisonous personality, afaik)
we run SM like a corporation (because, it is) and the project gets run as a project. That's what you seem to have always failed to see - the separation between the project and the corporation. (and that's what I always saw you getting upset about, actually - in your confusion, you assumed that corporate crap was aimed at you - when it never actually was.)
When the whole Norv thing imploded, I didn't approach anyone. I raised the issue or what happened as an issue - but I'm not in charge any more (thank gods) and I let those who are in charge deal with it (poorly, as it turns out, but that can hardly be blamed on me)
As for "true open source path" and "control"... did you even both to read my actual posts? What I laid out was not about control in any way, shape or form... it was about giving the people on the dev team the room they need while still giving the rest of the team the voice that they crave (without interfering with the actual development) Where the FUCK is the control in that?
and Arantor... I think that way about the devs because the batch of devs we had prior to Spuds, emanuele and Suki did state exactly that... Actually, even one of the recent devs (IchBin) said exactly that. I have always held up Spuds, emanuele (and to a lesser extent Suki) as models of how the devs can and should work with the team(s).
78
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 09:50 PM »
OK, I'll give you that... and that can actually even be factored in by the dev going to the dev lead and saying "I've looked at this... and it really needs to be fixed". The Dev lead then goes to the SC and says "We have decided that X needs to be fixed in the next release. We expect this will push the plans out by at least 2 months"
See, there is still ROOM for creativity and even for last minute additions.
Heck, I do the same things even in my real business projects. The devs (or QA) comes to me and say "We found something that needs to be done" and, as PM, it's my job to communicate back to the customer (or management, if it's an internal project) that the date is going to slip, but it's for a good reason)
The whole idea is to START by working towards a plan, though... That way, you have a goal, with an end "in sight"
I'll note - Agile/Incremental Sprint releases are even easier to handle this sort of thing (even though the SMF team has violently rejected any suggestion of agile) because you're working in much shorter timeframes than years or even months.
At the start of the sprint - what can you get done in a week? How about 2 weeks? Anything going to take more?
and then, as each sprint ends, you plan the next 1-2 weeks (plus anything ongoing left over from the previous sprint)
You draw form a list if things which should eventually be done (the backlog) and take what you can or want from the list, commit to an (estimated) timeframe and go with it.
Yes... we all know that people can't be HELD to a timeframe in this sort of project... but once again, working toward a goal means that you know where you are going and what you have promised to do (and so does everyone else in the sprint-team). and goals ca be adjusted much better in a 1-2 week sprint than in a 6 month push (when, at the end of 6 months, you suddenly find out that something wasn't done, or something got changed that should not have been)
Anyways... this is all just me rambling on what I *THINK* should be done or how it could be handled. I am (more or less happily) back down in the support ranks again and have no actual power to affect anything. I'd just like to see
a- some developers come back or new ones start - with this sort of thing in mind
b- a strong PM and dev lead who will actually lead AND work together
(as opposed to what happened with me and Norv, where she wanted all the power and felt the PM should basically be a figurehead or what happened before where the PM tried to rule the project with an iron fist... or what we have now, which is no good dev lead and (essentially) no PM.) All of those models are wrong.
See, there is still ROOM for creativity and even for last minute additions.
Heck, I do the same things even in my real business projects. The devs (or QA) comes to me and say "We found something that needs to be done" and, as PM, it's my job to communicate back to the customer (or management, if it's an internal project) that the date is going to slip, but it's for a good reason)
The whole idea is to START by working towards a plan, though... That way, you have a goal, with an end "in sight"
I'll note - Agile/Incremental Sprint releases are even easier to handle this sort of thing (even though the SMF team has violently rejected any suggestion of agile) because you're working in much shorter timeframes than years or even months.
At the start of the sprint - what can you get done in a week? How about 2 weeks? Anything going to take more?
and then, as each sprint ends, you plan the next 1-2 weeks (plus anything ongoing left over from the previous sprint)
You draw form a list if things which should eventually be done (the backlog) and take what you can or want from the list, commit to an (estimated) timeframe and go with it.
Yes... we all know that people can't be HELD to a timeframe in this sort of project... but once again, working toward a goal means that you know where you are going and what you have promised to do (and so does everyone else in the sprint-team). and goals ca be adjusted much better in a 1-2 week sprint than in a 6 month push (when, at the end of 6 months, you suddenly find out that something wasn't done, or something got changed that should not have been)
Anyways... this is all just me rambling on what I *THINK* should be done or how it could be handled. I am (more or less happily) back down in the support ranks again and have no actual power to affect anything. I'd just like to see
a- some developers come back or new ones start - with this sort of thing in mind
b- a strong PM and dev lead who will actually lead AND work together
(as opposed to what happened with me and Norv, where she wanted all the power and felt the PM should basically be a figurehead or what happened before where the PM tried to rule the project with an iron fist... or what we have now, which is no good dev lead and (essentially) no PM.) All of those models are wrong.
79
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 09:18 PM »
I hear what you are saying... you can indeed do wild and crazy things without much thought for consequence or timeline right now...
SMF, on the other hand, DOES need to think about timelines. the gap between 1.1 and 2.0 almost killed it.... we all know that.
So, interim releases like 2.1 are necessary...
just like it is necessary to fix things that need to be updated (like the ban system)
Even in the model that I illustrated, the devs have the freedom to do things like that... the main difference is that the actual inclusion back into the trunk needs to be planned rather than just "done"
SMF, on the other hand, DOES need to think about timelines. the gap between 1.1 and 2.0 almost killed it.... we all know that.
So, interim releases like 2.1 are necessary...
just like it is necessary to fix things that need to be updated (like the ban system)
Even in the model that I illustrated, the devs have the freedom to do things like that... the main difference is that the actual inclusion back into the trunk needs to be planned rather than just "done"
80
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 08:44 PM »
Arantor... I actually agree with that last statement.... And if it had been proposed at the start of 2.1, it may have been included... but 2.1 was, very purposefully and intentionally designed as as incremental, minor release. (muchly because of the timing, but also because Norv declared that she didn't think that ANY further development should be done on the 2.x line at all. Spuds and emanuele opted to step in and do some work on an incremental release (2.1) while the rets of the devs were SUPPOSED to be focused on SMC/3.0 (per their choice, not because the team said a word)
And I'll say, it was more than a good thing that they did that, considering where SMC has gone........
However, you seem to think that ANY restrictions are regimented... while I would argue that - be as creative as you like - but we need to consider things other than pure creativity and SMF can not go another 5 years without a release.
Seriously, an iterative approach is pretty straight forward and good for the SMF plans...
work on things for 2.1 that can be done in the time and with the resources we have.
plan or work on things for future releases as determined by the workers.... when it comes time to think about a 2.2 (or 3.0, or whatever) then you step forward and say "HEY! I have this great update that I made to the ban system. Let's drop it into the next release!"
That way there is both organization AND creativity.
What you are doing with wedge is great. You and Nao are amazing coders and (despite any disagreements that I have had with you :P ) pretty decent guys, and wedge is awesome! ... but you're still working on alpha and you don't actually have any community of users to support - so it's a slightly different model from the mature product that SMF currently is.
And I'll say, it was more than a good thing that they did that, considering where SMC has gone........
However, you seem to think that ANY restrictions are regimented... while I would argue that - be as creative as you like - but we need to consider things other than pure creativity and SMF can not go another 5 years without a release.
Seriously, an iterative approach is pretty straight forward and good for the SMF plans...
work on things for 2.1 that can be done in the time and with the resources we have.
plan or work on things for future releases as determined by the workers.... when it comes time to think about a 2.2 (or 3.0, or whatever) then you step forward and say "HEY! I have this great update that I made to the ban system. Let's drop it into the next release!"
That way there is both organization AND creativity.
What you are doing with wedge is great. You and Nao are amazing coders and (despite any disagreements that I have had with you :P ) pretty decent guys, and wedge is awesome! ... but you're still working on alpha and you don't actually have any community of users to support - so it's a slightly different model from the mature product that SMF currently is.
81
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 08:10 PM »
Arantor...
and that's exactly what devs SHOULD be doing... in a semi-planned fashion.
As you say, it's a huge undertaking, so it would not have been proper for 2.1, which was determined (at the outset) to be a release with new functionality but somewhat limited in major revisions.
However, saying "I want to do this" and putting it in a path for 2.2 (or whetever the next major release would be) would be completely appropriate and I can't conceive that anyone on the team would try to stop you from doing that....
and that's exactly what devs SHOULD be doing... in a semi-planned fashion.
As you say, it's a huge undertaking, so it would not have been proper for 2.1, which was determined (at the outset) to be a release with new functionality but somewhat limited in major revisions.
However, saying "I want to do this" and putting it in a path for 2.2 (or whetever the next major release would be) would be completely appropriate and I can't conceive that anyone on the team would try to stop you from doing that....
82
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 07:23 PM »
so... Bloc, this has been asked before, but I have yet to see an actual meaningful answer - what would make the team fun again?.
(and the only answer is have really seen was "the devs are the only ones that count, everyone else needs to stfu and since you won't stfu, we're leaving" (and yes, someone said, essentially that))
I understand leaving a project because its not fun. That's why I resigned back last spring.
and the only reason I came back was because k@ and Liroy kept asking me to do so
(and aside from the copyright debacle, I have been trying to stay out of the politics, etc)
but... back to the question.
If the devs left because they weren't having fun... what would bring them back to have some fun?
(and the only answer is have really seen was "the devs are the only ones that count, everyone else needs to stfu and since you won't stfu, we're leaving" (and yes, someone said, essentially that))
I understand leaving a project because its not fun. That's why I resigned back last spring.
and the only reason I came back was because k@ and Liroy kept asking me to do so
(and aside from the copyright debacle, I have been trying to stay out of the politics, etc)
but... back to the question.
If the devs left because they weren't having fun... what would bring them back to have some fun?
83
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 06:52 PM »
you are right... you can't manage things exactly as a standard business model.
That does not mean that you can't apply some of the same methods, etc...
and just because it is a volunteer organization does not mean that expectations and activities can't be managed... they just get managed differently.
One of the things that has always had me pulling my hair out is the refusal to plan anything.
The excuse is always the same "this is a volunteer project. you can't plan dates, etc"
and that is complete BS. Of course you can... as a matter of fact, you have to PLAN for releases.
Yep, we all know that the release will never be made "on target" for the originally planned date... and that we can't hold people to planned dates like we would in a business. I have never tried to claim that we should. However, you PLAN and then work toward something (even while understanding that the dates will always slip)
It gives people a GOAL to work toward...
It's not like a business where you say "Hit X date or your fired" (and I have never, ever, ever tried to suggest such a thing)
but saying "We'd like to try to release 2.1 alpha sometime around mid-2012" WORKS.
why? Because, with that in mind, the folks doing the work look at the work and can say umm... well, in that case you need one of three things. A) remove some of the things we have planned, because with all this stuff, there is no way we'll even hit 2013, let alone mid-2012. B) Plan for another date, Mid-2013 is more reasonable to plan toward, with all this crap or C) invent a working time machine.
This is not an unreasonable model, most especially because all of these dates and plans are INTERNAL to the team and are never communicated to the public... and also because no one is really HELD to those dates... it's just the PLAN for those dates.
That does not mean that you can't apply some of the same methods, etc...
and just because it is a volunteer organization does not mean that expectations and activities can't be managed... they just get managed differently.
One of the things that has always had me pulling my hair out is the refusal to plan anything.
The excuse is always the same "this is a volunteer project. you can't plan dates, etc"
and that is complete BS. Of course you can... as a matter of fact, you have to PLAN for releases.
Yep, we all know that the release will never be made "on target" for the originally planned date... and that we can't hold people to planned dates like we would in a business. I have never tried to claim that we should. However, you PLAN and then work toward something (even while understanding that the dates will always slip)
It gives people a GOAL to work toward...
It's not like a business where you say "Hit X date or your fired" (and I have never, ever, ever tried to suggest such a thing)
but saying "We'd like to try to release 2.1 alpha sometime around mid-2012" WORKS.
why? Because, with that in mind, the folks doing the work look at the work and can say umm... well, in that case you need one of three things. A) remove some of the things we have planned, because with all this stuff, there is no way we'll even hit 2013, let alone mid-2012. B) Plan for another date, Mid-2013 is more reasonable to plan toward, with all this crap or C) invent a working time machine.
This is not an unreasonable model, most especially because all of these dates and plans are INTERNAL to the team and are never communicated to the public... and also because no one is really HELD to those dates... it's just the PLAN for those dates.
84
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 06:25 PM »
well, yes... I am a project manager. :P
but seriously... I have always believed that it is about respect and that it is the leads' jobs to manage the people on their teams.
The thing I have been trying to get SMF to understand is not management of PEOPLE... it's management of activities and expectations
but seriously... I have always believed that it is about respect and that it is the leads' jobs to manage the people on their teams.
The thing I have been trying to get SMF to understand is not management of PEOPLE... it's management of activities and expectations
85
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 06:10 PM »
Bloc...
See, this is the thing I don't understand...
The dves have never been "steered" or "controlled" by anyone (except maybe their own dev lead)
Others have expressed opinions on what was getting added (or removed) and may have requested that something get added... but no one, to the best of my knowledge has ever tried to tell the devs how to code... or even what to code, once the "desired feature list" was discussed and decided on... and AFAIK, the devs have always made that decision (even if it realistically should sit with the SC)
the people complaining (former devs) all seem to be saying "I can't work like this, I can't have people telling me what to do and how to do it" --- but I have never seen anyone actually DOING that to the devs... The closest we non-devs have come to that was insisting that the rets of the team has a right to give our INPUT on what we think should be added (or removed).
See, this is the thing I don't understand...
The dves have never been "steered" or "controlled" by anyone (except maybe their own dev lead)
Others have expressed opinions on what was getting added (or removed) and may have requested that something get added... but no one, to the best of my knowledge has ever tried to tell the devs how to code... or even what to code, once the "desired feature list" was discussed and decided on... and AFAIK, the devs have always made that decision (even if it realistically should sit with the SC)
the people complaining (former devs) all seem to be saying "I can't work like this, I can't have people telling me what to do and how to do it" --- but I have never seen anyone actually DOING that to the devs... The closest we non-devs have come to that was insisting that the rets of the team has a right to give our INPUT on what we think should be added (or removed).
86
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 04:25 PM »
no... actually, it's more like certain folks mirepresented what the DCO was.
but anyway...
but anyway...
87
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 02:47 PM »
Well, we agree that the license and copyright should be in a separate file which is reference in the header rather than being defined in the header of each and every file/
What Norv did was not switch the license and copyright to indicate "see file"
What she did was change the copyright line attribution.
(actually, if we had originally had the copyright point to a file, it would not have been quite so big a deal... someone could have gone and done a re-commit of that single file rather than trying to back out the change made to every single file in the package.
As for the legal matter... you may be right (and, in which case, there are several other issues that need to be taken up within the team regarding the switch to the DCO and lying about what that did/does when they requested it)
Agnelina is actually talking with lawyers to get a definitive answer...
What Norv did was not switch the license and copyright to indicate "see file"
What she did was change the copyright line attribution.
(actually, if we had originally had the copyright point to a file, it would not have been quite so big a deal... someone could have gone and done a re-commit of that single file rather than trying to back out the change made to every single file in the package.
As for the legal matter... you may be right (and, in which case, there are several other issues that need to be taken up within the team regarding the switch to the DCO and lying about what that did/does when they requested it)
Agnelina is actually talking with lawyers to get a definitive answer...
88
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 02:32 PM »
Actually, Arantor, we do agree on that bit.
I think that SMF should change the header to indicate that the copyright and license (two different things) are defined in single, separate files. (for the same reasons that you mention (no need to change individual files each year/release...)
I think that SMF should change the header to indicate that the copyright and license (two different things) are defined in single, separate files. (for the same reasons that you mention (no need to change individual files each year/release...)
89
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 06:40 AM »
Hey, I never said you were silly...;)
I can't check now from my iPad, but I believe that the notice file of apache does actually have apache holding copyright to the product.
As for the devs saying that... It was recently said again... As justification for one of the devs not only leaving but withdrawing his planned submissions hat he had been working on, but had not yet committed.
And finally, it's not actually true. Most of the folks we have had as devs could not document their way outnof a paper bag. ;)
And support is something that most developers are equally poor at... You being one of the exceptions, not the rule. :)
Anyways... On the subject of lab... Not my choice nor did anyone ask my input... Lol
I can't check now from my iPad, but I believe that the notice file of apache does actually have apache holding copyright to the product.
As for the devs saying that... It was recently said again... As justification for one of the devs not only leaving but withdrawing his planned submissions hat he had been working on, but had not yet committed.
And finally, it's not actually true. Most of the folks we have had as devs could not document their way outnof a paper bag. ;)
And support is something that most developers are equally poor at... You being one of the exceptions, not the rule. :)
Anyways... On the subject of lab... Not my choice nor did anyone ask my input... Lol
90
Other software / Re: Discussing Wedge on simplemachines.org
« on January 11th, 2013, 05:30 AM »
See, the thing is Arantor... despite all of the screaming, yelling and leaving... No one has actually been telling the devs what to do.
That's what just gets my goat and boggles my mind.
Seriously... What I illustrated above is actually how Spuds and emanuele handled the 2.1 planning and implementation... and no one was demanding anything of them (other than the occasional request for an update on how they were doing and where they were in the process)
How are devs getting the shaft?
1- they get to discuss desired updates along with everyone else.
2- their team lead gets to decide the list of updates to be done with the SC. (that is the whole purpose of the SC, after all)
3- they get to work on the stuff that they want to work on, as previously discussed and decided...
As for copyright... you are correct. You hold the copyright to your own code. No one has ever claimed otherwise.
However, SM holds the copyright to the set of code that is SMF. This does not detract from or remove the copyright of each and every individual contributor, but SM holds the copyright to its software.
(BTW: the copyright statement that you reference was borrowed from the Apache foundation... and I don;t see any former contributors trying to claim that Apache doesn't hold the copyright to its software. So, for Norv or anyone else to claim otherwise for SMF is just silly.)
I am still not sure why devs left from the fall out of Norv's idiocy... It was so seriously blown out of proportion when all we originally did was ask that the change be reverted.
(I do agree on the permissions thing - there is no way that she ever should have had the permission to commit that change without review and approval)
You can shake your head all you want... but I seriously do not understand the dev's response... nor the ones who have recently left.
When I was PM, I was indeed trying to manage the RELEASE. I never tried to manage the development (despite what some folks have tried to claim - never once did I try to tell the devs how to code or what to code --- and, as far as I know, no one on the team has done so since then either. So, my only conclusion as to why the recent devs have left is that either they are childish gits who are so full of themselves that they can not conceive that anyone should be able to even suggest that there might be a good idea outside of their own minds (a possibility, I admit)... or (which is more likely) the whole thing is based on a series of misunderstandings and overreactions which folks are either too embarrassed or too stubborn to discuss.
See I like what you've done with Wedge. You guys have done a great job. Your model works GREAT for the initial product and even the first few versions... However, once you reach a certain size of community which you need to support though, you get into the need to have more than just the two of you. Which leads back to the process which I detailed above... there is nothing wrong with that process (as I said it is actually the process which spuds and emanuele used for 2.1 development)
When it breaks down is when people insist that they know better. (either devs saying "no one else should ever have any input, because we are the only ones that matter" or non-devs saying "we get to tell the devs what do do)
Both arguments are wrong... However, to this point, the only ones who have violated the process are the devs who have literally made that first statement... that devs are the only ones who matter and that the other teams just don't matter at all, since "anyone can do what the rest of you do"
I think that you are premature in declaring smf to be a dead project. People said the same thing before 2.0 came out... and while it was a long time coming, SMF did chug along... and like that, I have confidence that SMF will continue to chug along.
That's what just gets my goat and boggles my mind.
Seriously... What I illustrated above is actually how Spuds and emanuele handled the 2.1 planning and implementation... and no one was demanding anything of them (other than the occasional request for an update on how they were doing and where they were in the process)
How are devs getting the shaft?
1- they get to discuss desired updates along with everyone else.
2- their team lead gets to decide the list of updates to be done with the SC. (that is the whole purpose of the SC, after all)
3- they get to work on the stuff that they want to work on, as previously discussed and decided...
As for copyright... you are correct. You hold the copyright to your own code. No one has ever claimed otherwise.
However, SM holds the copyright to the set of code that is SMF. This does not detract from or remove the copyright of each and every individual contributor, but SM holds the copyright to its software.
(BTW: the copyright statement that you reference was borrowed from the Apache foundation... and I don;t see any former contributors trying to claim that Apache doesn't hold the copyright to its software. So, for Norv or anyone else to claim otherwise for SMF is just silly.)
I am still not sure why devs left from the fall out of Norv's idiocy... It was so seriously blown out of proportion when all we originally did was ask that the change be reverted.
(I do agree on the permissions thing - there is no way that she ever should have had the permission to commit that change without review and approval)
You can shake your head all you want... but I seriously do not understand the dev's response... nor the ones who have recently left.
When I was PM, I was indeed trying to manage the RELEASE. I never tried to manage the development (despite what some folks have tried to claim - never once did I try to tell the devs how to code or what to code --- and, as far as I know, no one on the team has done so since then either. So, my only conclusion as to why the recent devs have left is that either they are childish gits who are so full of themselves that they can not conceive that anyone should be able to even suggest that there might be a good idea outside of their own minds (a possibility, I admit)... or (which is more likely) the whole thing is based on a series of misunderstandings and overreactions which folks are either too embarrassed or too stubborn to discuss.
See I like what you've done with Wedge. You guys have done a great job. Your model works GREAT for the initial product and even the first few versions... However, once you reach a certain size of community which you need to support though, you get into the need to have more than just the two of you. Which leads back to the process which I detailed above... there is nothing wrong with that process (as I said it is actually the process which spuds and emanuele used for 2.1 development)
When it breaks down is when people insist that they know better. (either devs saying "no one else should ever have any input, because we are the only ones that matter" or non-devs saying "we get to tell the devs what do do)
Both arguments are wrong... However, to this point, the only ones who have violated the process are the devs who have literally made that first statement... that devs are the only ones who matter and that the other teams just don't matter at all, since "anyone can do what the rest of you do"
I think that you are premature in declaring smf to be a dead project. People said the same thing before 2.0 came out... and while it was a long time coming, SMF did chug along... and like that, I have confidence that SMF will continue to chug along.