Moving forward with BluePrint and admin

[Michael Bishop]

After an extremely positive and healthy exchange on IRC, this is meant
as a wrap up of that discussion.

First, Khaled will repost the most recent mocks that he is working off
of in building the new frameworks out of Blueprint. He will also
outline a guideline of sorts, so that any parties interested in
participating in the admin overhaul will have an understanding of
where things are going, and how they intended to be achieved.
Equally, he will continue to finish the basic conversion of all the
admin pages to the BP framework. In the meantime, I will work on
removing unnecessary styles from the existing admin.css, to help
prevent unwanted cascading.

At that point, patches/suggestions can be provided to further the goal
of the overhaul to match the mocks.

Also discussed is a move to set up the svn external. With the input
of the likes of Christian Montoya, whom I personally respect their
work on resets and cross browser compatibilities, I think we could
immediately benefit from these changes, not to mention the
aforementioned benefits of an svn external third-party directory.
Also, a move within the project towards a plugin type architecture,
should streamline the base code by moving specific, subjective CSS to
this secondary CSS directory, for such things as alternate form
styles, the button CSS, etc will help in allowing Habari to pick and
choose what is pertinent to our own project, as well as provide
another means for Habari to contribute back to the project. Also,
those who've been following the development, believe there is
definitely a movement to move away from already mentioned dislike of
fixed pixel fonts, towards a more cross browser friendly, em based
system will come sooner than later. I suggested possibly adopting the
YUI CSS in the short term, however that is still up for debate.
Either way, we are by no means forced to use the current fixed pixel
typography, and have many options, including offering back solutions
for the aforementioned em based typography.

Finally, I would like to take a second to thank the project and
community members who have been so supportive and encouraging in my
own personal development of my skill sets as a result of my
participation in this project. I think it is from this nurturing
environment that helped turn a negative, stymieing discussion into a
positive, forward moving solution. Just another reason why I believe
this will be a very successful project.

Also note, this by no means prevents anyone from presenting an
alternate solution by any means. Certainly the goal is to have the
best and most versatile solution for the admin, nor is it meant as a
end all be all. Obviously other areas of discussion have been raised,
and are equally important to a tremendously important aspect of the
project.

~miklb

[Root]

The important thing is that all you guys have got all this under
control and that you are happy with it.
Which the IRC guys all seem to be. That is good. I can relax and
chill.

[Owen Winkler]

On 9/2/07, Michael Bishop <bishopb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> After an extremely positive and healthy exchange on IRC, this is meant
> as a wrap up of that discussion.

I'm glad that by getting together on IRC we were able to work out what
I think bloomed into something we could have avoided with a little
understanding. For that, I think this was very effective, and it's
great to know that we have a path for moving forward.

I look forward to seeing what comes out of this, and please let us
know if/how we can help.

Owen

[Chris J. Davis]

Thanks for the email Michael, it is good to know that this was worked
out. I wish I could have been a part of this conversation, but it
gives me an incredible sense of peace to know that people get crap
done when it needs doing.

I echo Michael's point at the end, if somebody would like to propose
an alternate solution, this is the time to speak up and start working
towards it.

Chris

[Michael Bishop]

On Sep 3, 7:56 am, Root <atthe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The important thing is that all you guys have got all this under
> control and that you are happy with it.
> Which the IRC guys all seem to be. That is good. I can relax and
> chill.
>

The important thing you fail to recognize in your off hand comment
about "IRC guys" is that it was brought to the mailing list, and not
left as a conversation amongst a few participants (thank you Owen for
your recommendation). In this incredibly dynamic and global
community, in the moment, sincere, direct conversation can overcome
the overly written about breakdowns in communication that can occur
via email, something you yourself have acknowledged.

There is still *a lot* of work in this particular aspect of the
project, and there very well may be differences of opinion again,
however, I think due to the aforementioned exchange, as well as an
understanding that everyone shares a common goal, the ability to
rationally work through those differences will be the result.

Again, I applaud the project members as well as the active community
that I interact with in their diligence to propagate a genuine
inclusive community.

~miklb

[Root]

Well the decision of the few was published in the list.
I am not the only one who reads this.
And we understand that contribution here means nothing.
I think it has been a typical cheapo management type of manouver.
Right on.

[broke...@gmail.com]

Root sorry to be the one to point this out but meritocracy requires one to actually contribute more than opinion



------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Root <atth...@gmail.com>

Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:31:03
To:habari-dev <habar...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [habari-dev] Re: Moving forward with BluePrint and admin

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

On 3 Sep 2007, at 20:42, broke...@gmail.com wrote:

> Root sorry to be the one to point this out but meritocracy requires
> one to actually contribute more than opinion

That's untrue. Apache's form of meritocracy merely requires you to be
invited by the current group. There is no set entrance requirement.

- Geoffrey Sneddon

[Doug Stewart]

Not to quibble too much, but that's nepotism or cronyism, not meritocracy.

*chuckle*

--
-Doug

http://literalbarrage.org/blog/

[Rich Bowen]

As one who met the entrance requirement, let me assure you that this is not an accurate representation of how things work in Apache. Folks who don't contribute meaningfully towards the goals of projects never make it to the point where they'll get invited. It's not a popularity contest.

--

"She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit."

W. Somerset Maugham

[Root]

Well if you want to run Habari any which way that is fine.
But you set up this forum with no distinction between testers, users,
coders, developers
and invited feedback and dialogue. Now you are all doing your *where
is your code*
routine. I keep trying to tell you that no serious interface dev is
going to even fire up vi
without a specification. I wouldn't do it commercially. And I am not
doing it here.
So do I now need to keep silent? You want to *disinvite* me? Go right
ahead.

[Scott Merrill]

Root wrote:
> Well if you want to run Habari any which way that is fine.
> But you set up this forum with no distinction between testers, users,
> coders, developers
> and invited feedback and dialogue. Now you are all doing your *where
> is your code*
> routine. I keep trying to tell you that no serious interface dev is
> going to even fire up vi
> without a specification. I wouldn't do it commercially. And I am not
> doing it here.

I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the invitation to "show us the
code". In the absence of an agreed-upon specification, you are free to
develop a specification that you feel is appropriate. You are free to
document your spec, and then code your own implementation of it as a
working example of the benefits of that spec.

If your submission is decent, why would we not use it? We would
scrutinize it in the same way we scrutinize other contributions. We
would discuss -- as a community, publicly -- the relative strengths and
weaknesses of the proposed solution. We would revise what needed to be
revised, and if we all agree that it's a viable solution we would work
toward integrating it.

> So do I now need to keep silent? You want to *disinvite* me? Go right
> ahead.

We've all tried extremely hard to try to work with you, Root. We've
asked probing questions in response to your terse, aggressive comments.
We've tried to niggle from you meaningful participation. We've
extended invitation after invitation for you to be part of the process
in a positive, constructive manner. You have consistently chosen not to
provide much meaningful input on the specification, and have continually
offered negative commentary.

When asked how you would run things, you provided a definitive answer.
You are free to run with that answer, and produce a prototype admin
interface that satisfies your professional expertise.

It might be the case that we lack the skills required to produce a
formal design specification. It might be the case that none of us are
as passionate about the admin interface specification as you. I know
I'm not. So waiting for -- indeed, demanding or cajoling -- us to
produce such a specification might be an ineffective use of your time.
If you have experience producing such specifications, and if you have
something specific in mind that you expect to see of such a
specification, do please open a ticket on Google Code and attach (even a
rough draft version of) a specification of the sort you'd like to see.
That will provide for us something concrete to review and discuss. If
you have HTML and CSS to go with that specification, please submit that,
too.

In the absence of that kind of participation, your comments are a
distraction. I'm willing to accept that you mean well, and are trying
to goad Habari development to pay close attention to an area that you
feel is of utmost importance. Unfortunately, the way in which you are
participating is not particularly helpful. You are welcome to remain a
part of the community as long as you can respect the culture of that
community. Our's is a culture of mutual respect, and collaboration
toward problem solving.

--
GPG 9CFA4B35 | ski...@skippy.net | http://skippy.net/

[Geoffrey Sneddon]

On 4 Sep 2007, at 01:46, Rich Bowen wrote:

>
> On Sep 3, 2007, at 16:49, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 3 Sep 2007, at 20:42, broke...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Root sorry to be the one to point this out but meritocracy requires
>>> one to actually contribute more than opinion
>>
>> That's untrue. Apache's form of meritocracy merely requires you to be
>> invited by the current group. There is no set entrance requirement.
>
> As one who met the entrance requirement, let me assure you that this
> is not an accurate representation of how things work in Apache. Folks
> who don't contribute meaningfully towards the goals of projects never
> make it to the point where they'll get invited. It's not a popularity
> contest.

My understanding of what I've been told by people within the Apache
Foundation, and the website says:

[[
As the group started to develop their own version of the software,
moving away from the NCSA version, more people were attracted and
started to help out, first by sending little patches, or suggestions,
or replying to email on the mail list, later by more important
contributions.

When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be part
of the development community, they granted direct access to the code
repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability of
the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it more
effectively.

]]

-- http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy

I never said that you can become part of the development community
you didn't have to meaningfully contribute: I merely said that there
is no set entrance requirement, which is in line with both the above
and what I've been told.

- Geoffrey Sneddon

[Rich Bowen]

[[ Changed subject so that the technical discussion can proceed without this distraction ]]

On Sep 4, 2007, at 11:16, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:

My understanding of what I've been told by people within the Apache  

Foundation, and the website says:

[[

As the group started to develop their own version of the software,  

moving away from the NCSA version, more people were attracted and  

started to help out, first by sending little patches, or suggestions,  

or replying to email on the mail list, later by more important  

contributions.

When the group felt that the person had "earned" the merit to be part  

of the development community, they granted direct access to the code  

repository, thus increasing the group and increasing the ability of  

the group to develop the program, and to maintain and develop it more  

effectively.

]]

-- http://www.apache.org/foundation/how-it-works.html#meritocracy

I never said that you can become part of the development community  

you didn't have to meaningfully contribute: I merely said that there  

is no set entrance requirement, which is in line with both the above  

and what I've been told.

Yes, technically you are correct. There is no formal entrance requirement. Two remarks.

First, what you're quoting is a historical note about how things worked in the early days, which has become much more formalized now that there are 200 of us instead of 8. But formalized only in terms of actual voting procedure, not in terms of what the measurable requirements are.

Second, the statement of the entrance requirements are intentionally left vague for one simple reason. Giving someone a commit privilege is about trust. It is impossible to quantify trust. To make a formal statement of a requirement (this much time, this many patches, this many lines of code) undermines the much more subjective metric of "do I trust this person to not maliciously screw up our code?" You can't make that a formal requirement.

So I was given commit privileges because I demonstrated a passion for making the documentation correct and because particular individuals felt that I was trustworthy. I was made a member of the foundation because the membership as a whole felt that I had the best interests of the foundation at heart, rather than some other motive of self-aggrandizement, or perhaps a fleeting interest that would vanish overnight.

The Habari community model is loosely based on the way that Apache does things. That's largely my fault, because I was very vocal about it being a good way to run a community. There are some habits that have come over from Wordpress. Some of them are healthy, others are not. And that's certainly not for me to decide unilaterally. I have strong opinions, but I'm only one voice. The community dynamics are self-defining, and I'll preach, but I won't be a dictator.

--

"Books to the ceiling, Books to the sky, My pile of books is a mile high.

How I love them! How I need them! I'll have a long beard by the time I read them." -- Arnold Lobel