Re: News about the macro archive

[Tom Howard]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Peter

On 28/01/2005, at 12:35 AM, Peter Simons wrote:

> Tom Howard writes:
>
> > Well, I hope you enjoy the flaming as it can serve no
> > other purpose. My question to you is how did a discussion
> > become and flaming?
>
> It became flaming at the point where I had the impression
> that you (and others) were attacking me personally. That
> impression I have is very closely related to reading
> statements that are FACTUALLY UNTRUE. So if you don't want
> this to be flaming, try to talk about things that match the
> facts, then nothing will happen.

I you want to call me a liar (or imply that I am one), please be decent 
enough to refer to the exact points where I lied.

From this end it became a flaming when I dared to try to convince you 
that a verbose license statement would be better then just a keyword.  
The stupid thing is that all you had to say was "Yeah mate, I agree, 
but I want to use the keyword for the moment and then when all the 
changes are complete switch them a verbose license." To which I would 
have said "Sweet, let me wait till the modules file is updated before I 
commit, because that way I can have it generate a nice ChangeLog entry 
for us" and who knows how it would have progressed from there.  Instead 
you argue for (what seemed like) ages about how you wanted just the 
keyword, before say (in effect) "BTW you know those keywords will be 
converted to verbose, don't you?"

> > I've made the licence changes that you requested (and as
> > your requested).
>
> I am sorry, but it is a little late for that.

Yes, but only because instead of having a proper discussion, you got 
annoyed and made the changes yourself.

> > In most cases and forking of an open source project
> > indicates a failure at some level. For a project as small
> > as this it indicates a significant failure, and it seams
> > like something that you have no interest in rectifying.
>
> For me, a project's success or failure is determined by the
> quality of the result. The GNU Autoconf Macro Archive
> provides a useful service. If it didn't, we would hardly put
> all this passion into the discussions, would we? Who cares
> about a project that isn't useful?

We have different measures.  I for one rate usefulness to users very 
highly, not to imply that the GNU archive is not useful (I think we all 
agree that is is), just that (at least until recently; I haven't had 
time to evaluate all the changes) it could be *more* useful.

> You are right that a fork may be regarded as a failure
> insofar as that I didn't manage to integrate Guido
> successfully in the project I was running already when he
> showed up. I am willing to accept _half_ the responsibility
> for that. However, that's the past, and it can't be changed.
> My focus is on improving the archive I _have_; not the one I
> could have had or should have had.

I stated my motives quite early in the piece.  The only way I can see 
of achieving that is to help improve the archive.  I think adding the 
build files (well added make install support) is the biggest step 
towards that.

> > Whatever. The gnu archive is high ranked.
>
> I appreciate it when people admit that they were wrong.
> Thank you for that.

And I would appreciate likewise if you admitted moving all the files 
you knew I was working on without telling me was wrong.  Sadly, I'm not 
holding my breath.

> > You don't think having two archive is a mess?
>
> I used to, but I don't think that anymore. The ideas I have
> for the Autoconf Macro Archive seem to vary wildly from the
> ones other people have. Since this is a project I do in my
> spare time, I am not interested in going through the immense
> effort of finding consensus, I am interested in running the
> archive I want to run.

I see this is where we differ most on opinions.  For my projects, it's 
all about the community that surrounds it, for the GNU archive, it's 
all about you.  At least that's how I read the above.  Correct me if 
I'm wrong.

> So if you (or anyone else) has great ideas that I won't
> accept for whatever reason, I encourage you to set them up
> nonetheless. You can use branches in CVS and subdirectories
> on the web site, or you can run it on sf.net, or you can run
> it anywhere else. As long as it doesn't interfere with my
> work, I don't mind at all.

Did I ever "interfere" with your work?

> Seeing that people go through the effort of actually _doing_
> what they talk about is a much more persuasive argument to
> reconsider my opinions than lots of postings on a mailing
> list are.

I was waiting for the modules file to be updated before I committed the 
license changes and by the time that happened you had moved anything.  
I was never told there was a time frame in which the changes had to be 
made by.

> In a bizarre way, I have to give Guido a lot of credit for
> what he did back then. He didn't just talk, we went ahead
> and did it. He ran his own archive. I still don't like the
> way it was run, nor am I happy about the way he pulled it
> off back then, but I respect it a lot when people deliver on
> the ideas they have.

Don't imply that I don't deliver.  I can tar you up the changes that I 
made if you like, if you need proof.  The only reason they are not in 
the CVS now is because of the changes you made to the CVS layout.

> > > Yeah, I'm sure Guido is going to shut down
> > > ac-archive.sf.net any moment now. That's really the
> > > drift I have been catching from his postings.
>
> > I am certain that if the features he (and I and others as
> > well probably) needs are implemented with the gnu archive
> > then the SF archive would stop having a purpose and
> > quietly retire. Why not work towards that and see what
> > happens?
>
> Because I don't believe it will happen. Guido will never
> shut down ac-archive.sf.net; neither would I shut down my
> site. I've come to realize that both archives will have to
> coexist. And it's good that it is that way, because the
> competition between us drives both of us to make our archive
> better.

Well, I think it a confusing to the users that there is two archives.  
But's lets agree to disagree.

> > > If _you_ want to do something, then _you_ want it. Not
> > > "the users". The users are several thousand people all
> > > over the Internet, you've never been designated their
> > > spokes-person.
>
> > Someone needs to be the voice of the masses.
>
> I disagree. You have no right to speak as if you knew what
> "the masses" want. You quite simply don't know it! With the
> same right you speak for the masses, I could say _I_ speak
> for them. As a matter of fact, I have been having a LOT more
> contact with users of the archive than you did, and everyone
> except those rare exceptions here on the list seems to be
> pretty enthusiastic, actually.

To all the people I have represented (possibly falsely) in this 
discussion:  Please tell me I'm wrong.

> This leaves us at am impasse, so I suggest we both speak for
> ourselves.

Guido has responded in agreement to some of my posts and Alexandre 
likewise, I'll wait till I hear negative feedback from the users and 
contributors first.

> > The only person yet to disagree with what I'm saying is
> > yourself. So, yes as a user and contributor, I will do my
> > best to represent fellow users and contributors until I
> > see some differing opinions.
>
> That is some fucked up logic, Tom.

There is no need to swear on a public mailing list.  If you wish to 
swear at me, feel free to do so in private correspondence.

>  Let me apply the same
> logic. The reason why none of the vast number of users of
> the archive says anything is because they realize that your
> ideas are totally stupid and because they trust that I won't
> do it anyway. So the silent masses are really all on _my_
> side, not on yours.
>
> DISCLAIMER: The paragraph above is meant to be thought
> about. If you take it literally, you will miss the point.

If someone was pretending to represent me, and their opinions differed 
from mine, I would speak up.

> > The SF archive was created (from my understanding)
> > because Guido needed some features that you would not
> > allow (or removed, I don't pretend to know the intricate
> > details) in the gnu archive.
>
> That's not very accurate, to put it carefully.

Well as I said, I don't pretend to know the details.

> > Even though you dare no admit it, there are issues with
> > the gnu archive that have resulted in the creation of
> > another archive.
>
> Yes, and these issues are personal, not technical. So they
> have no place in this discussion.

From my understanding the only issues are technical.  The reason for 
the split may have been personal (I won't pretend I know), but the 
reason for their continued separation is technical.

> > If you let me help, I think you will be pleasantly
> > surprised when the SF archive become redundant and
> > disappears, though sadly after this exchange, I doubt you
> > would trust me. :(
>
> The reason why I don't trust you, Tom, is not this exchange;
> it is the fact that you were ignoring the agreement we had
> on how to update the content for the license disclaimer
> addition.

I was not ignoring you, I was trying to discuss it with you.  There is 
a big difference.  If I was just ignoring you, I wouldn't have 
mentioned on the list how I was doing the changes, I would have just 
committed them my way.  Please have the courtesy to retract the above 
statement.

>  I have no use for people who change plans without
> saying anything, especially if their spontaneous decisions
> spoil _my_ plans.

How did anything I committed spoil your plans?

> If you had actually committed these changes, I would have
> been mad as hell.

And you would have had every right to be.

>  So now I am not mad as hell, but I am
> still pretty disappointed because I _did_ trust you, did I
> not?

Why are you disappointed?  I was in control of the changes I made and 
knew I could switch them to your format at a blink of an eye (which I 
did).

> > > Yeah, I really needed to be inspired by your staggering
> > > technical expertise. Without the ac-archive-build stuff
> > > that never worked
>
> > IT did actually work, and I gave you instructions on how
> > it worked.
>
> I'll give you a pointer. These instructions you posted
> listed, among other things, the command:
>
>  $ ./bootstrap
>
> Now look real hard in the CVS repository.
>
> Once you've done that and realized your mistake, look real
> hard at the mailing list archive.

My bad.  It's just calls aclocal, automake, autoconf, etc.  I was going 
to say it would have been nice to be told at the time, but judging by 
below, you did, but I did not receive it.

>  Search for a followup of
> mine to your instructions. If you actually read it, you'll
> find the other problems I reported.

I honestly do no have any such follow up.  Can you please point me to 
the exact email as I think I never received it.

Cheers,

Tom Howard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFB+UTxw1G4ZUM7KZoRAgMBAKC8VrgGidlt6Izbd8lDc+FNALuJPwCfZhQR
OoBhxrhLz3JggxUQW6PtPZ8=
=1MW2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----