[FusionComm] 2 divisions or 2 projects?

[Jeffrey Laramie]

On Wednesday 11 July 2007 07:05, RYX wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 10.07.2007, 20:47 -0400 schrieb Jeffrey Laramie:
> > On Tuesday 10 July 2007 19:43, RYX wrote:
> > > This plan assumes that we are two communities, which is total
> > > nonsense ... This document needs a revision - that's all I am talking
> > > about. It was a first draft, nothing more.
> >
> > I don't know what you are talking about Rico. It was labeled a draft only
> > because we wanted to get input from the community before making it final,
> > not because we were still debating it.
>
> So you support the statement that we are _two_ communities: the core-
> and the extras-community???

This document clearly describes one community with 2 divisions. It also 
acknowledges that each division has different developers and community 
members. For example David, Gerd, and Soren contributed to compiz-core but 
rarely, if ever, used the forum. Arturo, Will, and you were active on the 
forum but didn't contribute to the compiz ML. I used the term "community" in 
the 5th bullet point because a "division" can't focus, only people can. It 
was the best way to describe the people that contribute to each division.

>
> > In fact this was one of several
> > announcements I held off publishing for weeks in an attempt to coordinate
> > it with the site revisions and the release of 0.4 and 0.5.
>
> Yes, I can remember that. Maybe you remember that we described the
> future of compiz and the compiz-community in that document.

Yes, that document was the description of our plans for the future.

> Meanwhile 
> things seem to have changed a bit ... I think the document should
> reflect that.

Other than the name of our community, I don't see what's changed. If you think 
something needs to be updated then you should propose changes on the admin 
list so they can be discussed.

>
> > I clearly stated in
> > my next post that if there were no objections from the community it would
> > be adopted. There was no objection from the community and it was supposed
> > to have been posted on the wiki.
>
> My objections (before it got announced) were simply ignored by you:
>
> (RYX, 4th April): "... maybe we should use "compiz-community" instead of
> "compiz-extra" - there is no compiz-extra division atm. It is a little
> misleading if we talk about merging something that doesn't exist and
> many people misunderstand the whole compiz-extra plan."
>
> btw: This terminology-problem with calling the whole thing
> "compiz-extra" caused us an incredible amount of misunderstanding and
> confusion - it could have been avoided with editing ten letters.
>
> This is just one of my rather tiny complains you ignored - there were
> some more.

Umm, I posted it on March 12th and this comment was on April 4th. Your only 
comment on my original draft was on March 5th when you said "No complains 
from my side ... :)". At the time it was posted you supported this document 
completely and didn't question it until it was discussed as the basis for the 
reunited community. Again you are trying to re-write history.

>
> > http://forum.compiz.org/viewtopic.php?t=677
> >
> > This represents the decision of the Compiz admins and the Compiz
> > community and nobody but you has ever questioned it's legitimacy
> > (although I don't think Mike agreed with the decision). It served as the
> > basis of our discussions on re-uniting and is supported by David and
> > every former beryl dev I've spoken with. If you think it needs to be
> > revised, fine. I've asked you before to propose revisions and you never
> > did. But please stop trying to re-write history and re-open decisions
> > that have already been made.
>
> Of course - Mike and me are always the bad boys who only complain and
> are soooo unconstructive ... (surprisingly enough we were right with a
> vast majority of the things we complained about). This argument gets
> pretty boring with the time.

You only have yourself to blame for that. When you stop making false and 
misleading statements, I'll stop correcting you.

Jeff