Re: [OT] Guido Draheim vs. Peter Simons vs. Rest of the World(was: Macro Archive Relaunch)

[Guido Draheim]

oh, sorry, just found the paragraph in an earlier one,...

Peter Simons schrieb:
> I have a problem with you copying my infrastructure, the archive I
> maintain, the web page I created around it (verbatim, word by word) --
> but you don't give any credit about it at all. Even better, you
> actually bash the effort I am putting into it. (On this list, on your
> web site, and in the commit messages of your CVS repository.)

that's because my addition had been about packaging and local
installation. Of course it builds on top of your work, and
picks up large parts of the infrastructure. Only in the very
latest versions I did start with replacing the old infrastructure
with a new one but I would rather like to not do so since it
does lead to more doublework - that's not good IMO.

> I have a problem with you misleading the users of your archive. On
> your web page you say:
>
>  | If you want to contribute ...
>  |
>  | then please don't hesitate a second! Just send the m4 source to
>  | Guido Draheim <address@hidden> via electronic mail. [...] Note that
>  | the two ac-archive repositories (sourceforge and savannah) are
>  | constantly kept in sync [...].
>
> The two archives are NOT kept "in sync". You download the macros from
> the GNU archive and add them into yours -- but not the other way
> round, because I do not accept submissions unless they come from the
> AUTHOR of the macro, since he is the only person who can license his
> intellectual property according to the terms described on my page. You
> make it look as if it really doesn't matter where authors send their
> macros to, because they will end up in both archives anyway, right?
> The truth is, that if someone submits a macro to the GNU archive, it
> will end up in both archives. If he sends it to you, it will be
> available in yours only.

well, there was a time that I had write access to the gnu cvs and
it was the time that the two ac-archives could be kept in sync
both ways even when the macro was sent to me first. It happens that
the respective document that you quote is verrry old as well. I do
not quite recall when you did revoke write-access but I guess it
was after the lines were written that you quote as evidence. sorry,
I might need to change that, it is clearly misleading.


> I furthermore have a problem with you advertising your archive as
> being the cool one, which "offers space for experimental extras",
> while you call the original one the "basic archive". What exactly does
> that mean? Do you have evidence of me ever rejecting a submission
> because it was too "experimental"?

No - it is about the `user directories`. As said in an earlier
mail, I was hoping that the sfnet branch could not _just_ be
about packaging but used for something more like a playground
for a variety of sourceforge people and their macros, so they
can list their extra macros in a central place. It was not used
that widely, there was no intent to mark it as "the cool one",
in fact _I_ would associate with "experimental" something like
unstable and not that overly attractive, ye know.

(Nice plot however to turn that the other way, I didn't ever
 think about that mode, but indeed, some update-junkies in
 the opensource world might think that it is cool - in fact
 I do know some of these types, and now that you say it, hmm,
 it could be really seen as that...ooops *g*)

> I have a problem with you -- through intent or carelessness --
> breaking the build mechanism of the GNU archive, as I have said
> repeatedly.
>
> My impression is that you have a _personal_ problem with me. Not the
> other way round. When I posted my original article to this list, I
> knew that you would JUMP at it, and that you wouldn't have many
> positive things to say about what I do. Surprise! Here we are.

That's by another background - I do a lot of xml stuff and text
retrivial these days, and from my personal experience I do not
like that users edit xml text _manually_. It should really be
an intermediate format that can be fed from very different sides
like perhaps a script that turns the traditional format into
such an intermediate format. But there may even be other formats
for the `original source` - it opens the possibility to just
change the submission format and still be able to use the old
formatting chain of tools, or to attached a parallel formatting
chain of tools to target a different output media. The xml
world offers a great amount of tools, and that's surely the
greatest thing which did make for the sucess of xml - it is my
personal opinion that the success of the xml format is not in
its ability of being a nice format for human users to write
their original stuff with.

So, of course I would jump in and be critizing, as I have some
knowledge in xml, and I did express my doubts in an earlier
thread about the topic (a few months back?). So yes, no
surprise here, but that was not related to any personal problem
I might have with you. It's been about technical details, and
nothing else that made me jump in (minus the last paragraph
in the first response, to be fair)

> To address the other part of your statement: I reply to e-mails I
> receive through a public forum in the same public forum. Sending an
> e-mail to this list, which makes false claims, and then telling me
> that we should discuss this in private, is a half-assed way of trying
> to get the last word.
To give you my phone number in a private e-mail a year back, that
can not count as a half-assed way of trying to get the last word.
I did see problems coming up back then, and I did want to get them
out of the world as soon as possible. The same thing is on now,
a long time later, and to just have a talk on the phone is simply
the _fastest_ thing to do without bothering the rest of the mailing
list with it. Surely, the rest of the mailing list can not follow in
that, so you're right, we might need to let this thread meander to its
end just as every flame war has to be. ;-) ... that's no problem
with me either. :-)=) ... but I don't need to like it, and I still
don't think the situation is exactly the way that you describe as
"crystal-clear" in another mail. (btw, is "crystal-clear" a term
understood outside of german regions?).

anyway, let's stop this response here, it is quite long even
now, rest assured that I am ready to pick up any point if
there is a wish to handle it. Oh, perhaps this gem...

> Last but not least, let's look at your repeated claim that I threw
> away your work. 

That's just how it felt - you do say now that there were problems
with the changes but you did not tell about these BACK THEN and
you did not respond to my attempts to resolve the issue BACK THEN
to make my `extra stuff` live along well with what you were
heading for. You did not use mail or phone BACK THEN. And NOW, we
have to go by that in public in a nice looooooong flaming session.
:-)

let's see where that ends, - btw, there are of course signs with
me being disgruntled and doing my own stuff independently, but
I was always trying to keep the door open for a merger so there
is little evidence to be found for real - only as of late I was
starting to think as to just move ahead and add stuff without
caring about compatibility with the gnu cvs infrastructure.
Perhaps it is lucky this thread started before the door for a
merger is shut for real.

cheers, guido