On Thu, 20 Mar 2003, Alan Hourihane wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 11:37:34 +0000, Keith Whitwell wrote:
> > XFree86 BOD wrote:
> >
> > >It has been brought to the attention of the XFree86 Core Team that one
> > >of its members, Keith Packard, has been actively (but privately) seeking
> > >out support for a fork of XFree86 that would be led by himself. He is
> > >also in the process of forming a by-invitation-only group of vested
> > >interests to discuss privately concerns he has about XFree86 and the
> > >future of X. He has consistently refused to even disclose these concerns
> > >within the context of the XFree86 Core Team, which makes his membership
> > >of that team unviable. As a consequence, Keith Packard is no longer a
> > >member of the XFree86 Core Team.
> >
> > What specifically does the XFree86 bod see as being wrong with the idea of
> > a 'by-invitation-only group' managing X server development? Isn't that
> > exactly what the core team & xfree86 BOD have been doing all along?
>
> Not exactly. Long ago, that was probably right, but these days you
> could probably see the Core Team as a bunch of committers to the CVS,
> obviously with their own areas of technical knowledge as well.
> And yes, we've met on occasion, but more in the reality of a coding
> frenzy to work on what we wanted to work on. More recently to talk about
> XFree86 5.0, of which I've sent what I wrote down to this list already.
>
> As for the BOD list, the Core Team doesn't know what goes on within that
> list either, not that it bothers me at all.
The "secret society" aspect of the core and BOD is really not
accurate. It's not really clear to me that our BOD does anything at
all. In fact, other than the recent business with Keith Packard, the
last time I remember them doing anything was the statement
on XFree86's official opinion on the X.org X11R6 licesing fiasco.
I don't see how any publicly elected BOD is going to change anything.
The simple matter is that there's seems little for an advisory
board to do. I'd just assume keep our current useless BOD than get
a new useless BOD. XFree86's direction IS dictated primarily by its
contributors. The fact that it's not perceived that way is merely
a marketing problem. I'm not being cynical. I just don't know
how to communicate things in a way that's not direct so that's
the way it comes out.
I will second Alan's statement that the core is really
not much more than the list of people which have CVS commit access.
Being a core member is somewhat symbolic. It is granted only after
a long history of significant (actually substantial is more
accurate) contributions to the XFree86 project. There are more people
being considered for core status now. Think of it as the five-year
plaque.
Personally I am in favor of changing the core structure
to behave more like Linux kernel's lieutenants. It doesn't really
change the operation of the core much - it mostly just changes the names
you assign to it. In my opinion XFree86 behaves much like Linux
kernel already, it's just that the execution is flawed, particuarlly
where application of patches are concerned, and that's something
I'd like to see us work on.
>
> > Maybe the core team & bod could explain what is being hinted as a new
> > spirit of openness and how that is proposed to effect the XFree86
> > development process and strategy? Will it mean forinstance an end to the
> > sort of behind-closed-doors discussions that appear to have lead to this
> > announcement?
>
> You'd be surprised if you saw what is actually discussed on the Core Team
> lists. Not much at all, apart from recent events that led up to this email.
> I have to say, that a lot of the Core Team is still in the dark on why
> Keith decided to divert his attention away from XFree86 in the way that
> has transpired. We're as much in the dark as you Keith Whitwell (thought I'd
> better add your surname to avoid confusion).
I too am in the dark. I do not understand why Keith Packard, a
core member himself, chose to not use that position of influence within
the XFree86 project to fix these problems. I don't see how a fork
would do anything but cause resentment and deprive both projects
of a focused effort.
>
> > Please forgive my somewhat cynical tone... The best strategy to fight a
> > fork would be to open up XFree & thereby make forking unnecessary. It
> > seems like that is whats being attempted, but can the leopard change its
> > spots? Sometimes I wonder if it knows it has them.
>
> Apart from when I was a teenager, I can remember having spots.
>
> > OK - some concrete proposals, with cynicism turned off:
> > - Make BOD minutes public
>
> That would be good, if I knew there were any minutes, which I don't think
> there are.
>
> > - Open all core team meetings to the public, and if feasible post
> > minutes, transcripts or even audio feeds.
>
> As for my 'XFree86 5.0 TODO' email, that's what was intentional.
>
> > - Extend CVS access to regular contributors. Use scripts or
> > whatever to control access to subtrees if you want.
>
> This comes up from time to time, and I'm sure will get discussed even more.
> I know there have been offers to others for CVS commit access, and some
> have refused and some have accepted. The consensus of who gets commit
> access has always been - if they show competance at sending patches in,
> then after a period of time, no doubt they'll get it. It's the same as
> the DRI, but with more of a prolonged period of evaluating that persons
> patches. I guess this 'prolonged' period, is the stickling point for most.
Keith, I'm sure you've seen some pretty shady patches come your
way so you understand that review by qualified people is essential.
I believe we do need more commiters, particularly in some parts of
the tree, but I also believe that this commit access should be
granted only to people with sufficient expertise, not merely to
people who have a vested interest. I know we have poor coverage
in some parts of the tree, and I think that needs to be fixed.
>
> > - Consider dropping the BOD and core team ideas in favour of an
> > elected committee. Examine recent trends in managing other large projects.
>
Just some somewhat disconnected statements:
I think that elected commiters is a bad idea.
I have a low opinion of the usefulness of advisory boards.
I have a strong respect for competent developers. I suppose
that make me an elitist, but no more that you are, I suppose.
I think one of our main problems is that we've linked CVS commit
access with the "5 year plaque", and I think we should emulate
Linux kernel's development model more closely instead.
Mark.
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Tablet PC.
Does your code think in ink? You could win a Tablet PC.
Get a free Tablet PC hat just for playing. What are you waiting for?
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?micr5043en
_______________________________________________
Dri-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dri-devel
