freemind-developer

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Eric L. - F. <fre...@zo...>]

Hi,

Dimitry Polivaev said:
> Hi Eric and Dan,
>
>> Like Dan, I'd rather suggest to use the priority because that's what
it's meant for :-) So my suggestion would be something like:
>> - 5 - default value - someone needs to look into it and take a
decision. - >5 - important bug - no release before it's fixed.
>> - <5 - minor bug - release can happen without it being fixed.
>
> I see that we still can mark less relevant bugs using lower priorities.
What about the bugs which seems not to be reproducible ? Should they
priority be lowered or could they be moved into Group "Rejected" ?

I'd be more blunt in my approach: if, after a reasonable amount of effort,
we can't reproduce it, we just close it. I did it recently for one of the
bugs, putting it pending to give the user a chance to react (OK, it was
also so that he/she provided next to no information).

Eric

>
> Dimitry

-- 
Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Eric L. - F. <fre...@zo...>]

Hi,

I thought long and hard about deciding if I should answer to Dan's
email(s); I had funny, angry and even reasonable arguments in mind, but I
don't see how any of this can lead to something constructive regarding my
past experiences with our dear project director, so I just don't answer.

It doesn't mean I do agree, it just means that I'm at loss.

I think releasing 0.9.0 asap is important not only for our users, but also
for the project as a whole.

Eric

-- 
Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...>]

> I'd be more blunt in my approach: if, after a reasonable amount of effort,
> we can't reproduce it, we just close it. I did it recently for one of the
> bugs, putting it pending to give the user a chance to react (OK, it was
> also so that he/she provided next to no information).

The only remaining question are about who could spend his time in 
evaluating the requests and whether he is allowed to close the requests 
that seems to be wrong (or set them to pending status so that the 
originator can response).

FYI: I have done an experience that some of the bugs can be demonstrated 
only with some J2SE versions.

Dimitry

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Ray B. <ray...@co...>]

Maybe we could have a "pending reject" kind of status, that would let 
originators know that without more information, we have to close their 
bugs. If, after 2 weeks, there is no new information, we close them.

Ray

Dimitry Polivaev wrote:
>> I'd be more blunt in my approach: if, after a reasonable amount of effort,
>> we can't reproduce it, we just close it. I did it recently for one of the
>> bugs, putting it pending to give the user a chance to react (OK, it was
>> also so that he/she provided next to no information).
>>     
>
> The only remaining question are about who could spend his time in 
> evaluating the requests and whether he is allowed to close the requests 
> that seems to be wrong (or set them to pending status so that the 
> originator can response).
>
> FYI: I have done an experience that some of the bugs can be demonstrated 
> only with some J2SE versions.
>
> Dimitry
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Freemind-developer mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
>
>   

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Eric L. <fre...@zo...>]

Hi,

Ray Benjamin wrote:
> 
> Maybe we could have a "pending reject" kind of status, that would let 
> originators know that without more information, we have to close their 
> bugs. If, after 2 weeks, there is no new information, we close them.
That's exactly what the "Pending" state is meant for, just that it's 4 
instead of 2 weeks :-)
And there is a resolution type called "Works for me".

Eric

> 
> Ray

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Ray B. <ray...@co...>]

Works for me.

Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ray Benjamin wrote:
>   
>> Maybe we could have a "pending reject" kind of status, that would let 
>> originators know that without more information, we have to close their 
>> bugs. If, after 2 weeks, there is no new information, we close them.
>>     
> That's exactly what the "Pending" state is meant for, just that it's 4 
> instead of 2 weeks :-)
> And there is a resolution type called "Works for me".
>
> Eric
>
>   
>> Ray
>>     
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Freemind-developer mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
>
>   

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Eric L. <fre...@zo...>]

Hi,

Dimitry Polivaev wrote:
>> I'd be more blunt in my approach: if, after a reasonable amount of effort,
>> we can't reproduce it, we just close it. I did it recently for one of the
>> bugs, putting it pending to give the user a chance to react (OK, it was
>> also so that he/she provided next to no information).
> 
> The only remaining question are about who could spend his time in 
> evaluating the requests and whether he is allowed to close the requests 
> that seems to be wrong (or set them to pending status so that the 
> originator can response).

I do it from time to time, and check bugs, assign them to the one or the 
other developers, etc... But a few more helpers from our community could 
be of help (I think I made a proposal in this direction a while ago).
If there is an agreement on the principle, and if an admin is ready to 
give the necessary rights to the nominated users, I could drive this (or 
someone else, Ray?).

> 
> FYI: I have done an experience that some of the bugs can be demonstrated 
> only with some J2SE versions.
Well, that's why we need to make sure that the reporter tells us the 
exact Java version. On the other hand, my experience is also that such 
issues are actually Java bugs you can google for (but not always probably).

Eric

> 
> Dimitry
> 

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Ray B. <ray...@co...>]

I'm pretty sure I can work this into my schedule. I'll just check the 
bug queue first thing each morning, if you want me to do this.

Ray

Eric Lavarde wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dimitry Polivaev wrote:
>   
>>> I'd be more blunt in my approach: if, after a reasonable amount of effort,
>>> we can't reproduce it, we just close it. I did it recently for one of the
>>> bugs, putting it pending to give the user a chance to react (OK, it was
>>> also so that he/she provided next to no information).
>>>       
>> The only remaining question are about who could spend his time in 
>> evaluating the requests and whether he is allowed to close the requests 
>> that seems to be wrong (or set them to pending status so that the 
>> originator can response).
>>     
>
> I do it from time to time, and check bugs, assign them to the one or the 
> other developers, etc... But a few more helpers from our community could 
> be of help (I think I made a proposal in this direction a while ago).
> If there is an agreement on the principle, and if an admin is ready to 
> give the necessary rights to the nominated users, I could drive this (or 
> someone else, Ray?).
>
>   
>> FYI: I have done an experience that some of the bugs can be demonstrated 
>> only with some J2SE versions.
>>     
> Well, that's why we need to make sure that the reporter tells us the 
> exact Java version. On the other hand, my experience is also that such 
> issues are actually Java bugs you can google for (but not always probably).
>
> Eric
>
>   
>> Dimitry
>>
>>     
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Freemind-developer mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
>
>   

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dan P. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi Dimitry,

I have to correct your reading of what I have agreed to.

I have agreed that I have no problem making *you* the responsible person,
coordinating the effort. I did not mention that I would agree that *anyone
else* is going to be responsible. I have agreed that you could delegate the
task to Eric and Ray as you see fit, to the extent to which they agree. I
did not agree that you delegate the task to anyone outside the current
FreeMind team.

If you delegate the task, you are still going to be reponsible. If something
goes wrong, it is going to be your responsibility that it went wrong.
Delegation does not mean passing away responsibility.

If there was some further misunderstanding, I propose we have another talk
on this topic.

Regards,
Dan

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...>]

Hallo Dan,

> I have agreed that I have no problem making /you/ the responsible 
> person, coordinating the effort. I did not mention that I would agree 
> that /anyone else/ is going to be responsible. I have agreed that you 
> could delegate the task to Eric and Ray as you see fit, to the extent to 
> which they agree. I did not agree that you delegate the task to anyone 
> outside the current FreeMind team.
> 
> If you delegate the task, you are still going to be reponsible. If 
> something goes wrong, it is going to be your responsibility that it went 
> wrong. Delegation does not mean passing away responsibility.
> 
> If there was some further misunderstanding, I propose we have another 
> talk on this topic.
> 

I do not see your point. I am sure that Eric and Ray are able to 
coordinate this task very well, in a responsible and thoughtful way.
Actually I do not see how I could do it significantly better or 
different than the guys. And if the things would go in a wrong direction 
(which I do not see any reasons for), all of us would notice it and make 
comments and suggestions how to improve.

I trust Eric and Ray, and consequently I trust people trusted by Eric 
and Ray. I think that they can develop a very good solution. And if 
there are any questions arising, we can always discuss and clarify them.

Best regards, Dimitry

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dan P. <dan...@gm...>]

Hi Eric,

Dimitry has asked me whether I agree that there would be a responsible
person. The idea of a person *responsible* is his, not mine. I have only
confirmed that I have no problem with this idea. No one should use the term
"reponsible person" and violate its meaning at the same time.

It is not me who insists that there should be a person responsible.

You have to clarify this with Dimitry.

I have not proposed anything; I have only agreed to certain proposals.

If someone uses the words "responsible person" and "to delegate", he should
better know what he is speaking of. These were not mine words; these were
the words of Dimitry.

Best regards,
Dan



On Feb 1, 2008 9:47 AM, Eric Lavarde - FreeMind <fre...@zo...>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> under these circumstances, I do not want to take over the task, and I
> suggest that we postpone this discussion post 0.9.0.
>
> I'm astonished that someone might even think about creating a hierarchy
> for an Open Source project with more or less 5 active members!
>
> Eric
>
> Dan Polansky said:
> > Hi Dimitry,
> >
> > I have to correct your reading of what I have agreed to.
> >
> > I have agreed that I have no problem making *you* the responsible
> person,
> > coordinating the effort. I did not mention that I would agree that
> *anyone
> > else* is going to be responsible. I have agreed that you could delegate
> > the
> > task to Eric and Ray as you see fit, to the extent to which they agree.
> I
> > did not agree that you delegate the task to anyone outside the current
> > FreeMind team.
> >
> > If you delegate the task, you are still going to be reponsible. If
> > something
> > goes wrong, it is going to be your responsibility that it went wrong.
> > Delegation does not mean passing away responsibility.
> >
> > If there was some further misunderstanding, I propose we have another
> talk
> > on this topic.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dan
>
> --
> Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Freemind-developer mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
>

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dan P. <dan...@gm...>]

And one more thing, Eric.

I am actually barely controlling my anger. It would be very kind of you if
would start to communicate in a less angering manner. Avoiding exclamation
marks and strong words would be a nice place to start.

Best regards,
Daniel

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Ray B. <ray...@co...>]

I have to have a filter on my email that warns me when I'm putting in 
stuff that's likely to anger people. Sometimes, emotions get the best of 
all of us.

I may be misunderstanding things, but I don't think anyone meant to 
challenge anyone's authority. I got the impression that Dimitry was 
trying to find a reasonable way to get this task done. I would imagine 
that we all want some say in who is filtering the bugs, since it affects 
everyone, and I can't imagine anyone appointing someone to that 
responsibility without getting buy-in from the rest of the team.

Weekend is here. Don't let anger spoil it. :)

Ray

Dan Polansky wrote:
> And one more thing, Eric.
>
> I am actually barely controlling my anger. It would be very kind of 
> you if would start to communicate in a less angering manner. Avoiding 
> exclamation marks and strong words would be a nice place to start.
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Freemind-developer mailing list
> Fre...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freemind-developer
>   

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...>]

Hi Eric,

>> The only remaining question are about who could spend his time in 
>> evaluating the requests and whether he is allowed to close the requests 
>> that seems to be wrong (or set them to pending status so that the 
>> originator can response).
> 
> I do it from time to time, and check bugs, assign them to the one or the 
> other developers, etc... But a few more helpers from our community could 
> be of help (I think I made a proposal in this direction a while ago).
> If there is an agreement on the principle, and if an admin is ready to 
> give the necessary rights to the nominated users, I could drive this (or 
> someone else, Ray?).

I have just had a long chat with Dan (8 pm - 10:30 pm) about different 
qustions, and we have agreed that we could define a role responsible for 
the initial bug analysis including

1. Evaluating of the bugs,
2. Rejecting (closing) of the non relevant stuff,
3. First level user support,
4. Assigning a priority,
5. Assigning of the bug to the developer.

The goal of this role is to make sure that all bug reports are read, 
that they get priorities and that the important reports are assigned to 
developers. I have understood Dan so that he has no objections again 
giving the responsible person necessary rights in the tracker system, 
and I could do so if it is becomes relevant. We have also agreed that 
some time after the role is introduced, this decision can be reviewed 
and changed.

In this sense I would be very glad if Eric (or Ray) could coordinate 
this important task or find a person who could do it.

The other issues we have discussed today were about

* Bugs in SimplyHTML,
* Memory consumption report,
* Beta 16 (I have built and uploaded the release today, but it still 
should be tested and is currently hidden).

I shall write a short protocol of our chat next week as I come back home 
(I am away at the week end).

Cheers, Dimitry

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Eric L. - F. <fre...@zo...>]

Hi,

under these circumstances, I do not want to take over the task, and I
suggest that we postpone this discussion post 0.9.0.

I'm astonished that someone might even think about creating a hierarchy
for an Open Source project with more or less 5 active members!

Eric

Dan Polansky said:
> Hi Dimitry,
>
> I have to correct your reading of what I have agreed to.
>
> I have agreed that I have no problem making *you* the responsible person,
> coordinating the effort. I did not mention that I would agree that *anyone
> else* is going to be responsible. I have agreed that you could delegate
> the
> task to Eric and Ray as you see fit, to the extent to which they agree. I
> did not agree that you delegate the task to anyone outside the current
> FreeMind team.
>
> If you delegate the task, you are still going to be reponsible. If
> something
> goes wrong, it is going to be your responsibility that it went wrong.
> Delegation does not mean passing away responsibility.
>
> If there was some further misunderstanding, I propose we have another talk
> on this topic.
>
> Regards,
> Dan

-- 
Eric de France, d'Allemagne et de Navarre

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dimitry P. <dpo...@gm...>]

Hi Dan,

> Dimitry has asked me whether I agree that there would be a responsible 
> person. The idea of a person /responsible/ is his, not mine. I have only 
> confirmed that I have no problem with this idea. No one should use the 
> term "reponsible person" and violate its meaning at the same time.
> 
> It is not me who insists that there should be a person responsible.
> 
> You have to clarify this with Dimitry.
> 
> I have not proposed anything; I have only agreed to certain proposals.
> 
> If someone uses the words "responsible person" and "to delegate", he 
> should better know what he is speaking of. These were not mine words; 
> these were the words of Dimitry.

Speaking about the responsible person I mean somebody who is (1) allowed 
and (2) willing to do or coordinate the job. Because bug tracker is 
relevant for all, it assumes that there is an agreement between the 
person and the rest of the team about it.

So if I am allowed to take care of the bug tracker (as I have proposed), 
my best option is to find good people who could do it or help me with it.

Dimitry

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dan P. <dan...@gm...>]
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Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dimitri P. <dpo...@gm...>]

Dan,

> you seem to mistake "director" for "cheerleader", or
> "responsible" for "allowed to".

Yes, I think that a project lead is a motivator leading by sharing visions and acknowleding of good job. Further I think that responsibility in a open source project means that somebody who wants to achieve some results  is supported by the others in his intention.

> It is very hard for me to communicate with someone who uses the words of
> English language in meanings that they standardly do not have.
> In any case, I now see that there was a misunderstanding. That makes the
> results of our ICQ or Jabber conversation invalid.

It is not only about the wording, but about the matter. Eric, Ray and me have expressed that we want to work with bug tracker in a more systematic way. And we have started to discuss how to achieve it. You are currently blocking all our efforts and declining our suggestions. You do not give us any real arguments not based on your understanding of project management hierarchy which I have never agreed with. 

I think that this position hurts all of us and it hurts FreeMind because it just creates new barriers and makes working on relevant issues impossible. I hope that you think about it and come with more constructive proposals.

Best regards, Dimitry

Re: [Freemind-developer] Right direction toward 0.9.0

[Dan P. <dan...@gm...>]

Dear Dimitry,

I do not understand in what way I am blocking any efforts. Could you please
explain how I am blocking your, Eric's, or Ray's effort to handle bug
reports? I do not understand what you mean.

Best regards,
Dan