Lawrence Meckan
|
History never repeats? - 2005/10/25 18:21
Martin,
Firstly, it is good to see you openly discussing the Mambo team and what it may mean for you and those who use Remository (I'm one of them).
I've already made a comment on Devils' Advocate and I'll leave this here to address something not covered as much in your Devil's Advocate article as it was aimed for an external market.
There was one statement which is consistent both here, and in your words on Devils' Advocate. The idea behind your statement is somewhat unsettling.
"It is hard to figure out what really happened, and I don’t really want to trawl through history." paralleled with your words on Devils' Advocate: "I don't know who is right and probably never will."
Yes, it's hard to figure out what's really happened. The fact I got locked, banned and shut out of most communication channels Mambo related for trying to get that information out reflects on the management decisions made by the Board and by the company, Mambo Communities, run by Miro itself. It became harder, but not impossible to get the information I needed to see the relative worth of the Board's ideology.
That's why it is important to get whatever information is available out to people. That way, people can understand who is right and who is wrong, because it gives people the freedom to make up their own mind, outside of whatever PR is going on to keep the Mambo machine well oiled.
This is why I approached Miro in the first instance before they uncerimonously banned me for speaking out against the actions Mambo Communities were doing on the forums. That is why I discussed the issues with the Core team.
Now, Martin, what happens if the history of the last two months shows that whatever the Foundation has been feeding you hasn't exactly been legit ? Are you prepared, as an independent Board member, to stand up and help direct the direction of the Foundation so that it keeps to professional ethics and legal standards ?
Lawrence Meckan
Absalom Media
ex-Mambo 3PD Standards & Guidelines team (removed, not resigned)
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/25 21:29
Hi Lawrence
Thanks for raising your concerns. I really don't believe that dredging over the past is going to help. Just to prove it, I will do a little bit of it.
You've asserted in the Joomla forum that Travis Fraser was the new Mambo team leader, and the rest of the team "merely code monkeys". In an apparently critical aside, you mentioned that "counterpoint" had never posted in the forums.
Now I am "counterpoint", and have extensively posted as "mbrampton" as well as more recently posting as "counterpoint". I preferred to remain anonymous while reviewing the situation and starting to develop plans for Mambo. In future, I will probably post exclusively as "counterpoint".
There was no team leader after the departure of the old team, until a number of people had volunteered to join. Then there was an election, for which Travis did not stand. I am the only team leader there has been in the current period. Likewise, I was elected to the board of the Mambo Foundation. Direction for the project is being set as a result of discussion between all the team members, but particularly by the Mambo Steering Committee, all of whom were elected by their teams. I can't help finding the description "code monkey" rather offensive - do you really think it describes me or my colleagues? Is the use of that exact phrase by "Davion" a coincidence?
Did that advance anything? Everything above is absolutely true - but do you feel better for hearing it? Those matters are from my personal experience, so I know the facts. But do you even believe me?
And I know that the situation has been seriously misrepresented. Regarding the earlier stuff, as I said, I simply do not know, am unlikely ever to know and don't think that knowing would really do any good to anyone. More than likely there are ill advised moves on all sides, but how does that help us to move forwards? In reference to the title you have chosen, I'll quote Roy Basler: "To know the truth of history is to realize its ultimate myth and its inevitable ambiguity". 
I am by no means certain that banning people from forums was the right move. But then I did not have to make a decision about handling a situation where the whole of the forums seemed to be a pitched battle, full of confident statements that had doubtful basis in fact. Not to mention a variety of quite offensive personal attacks. I can't remember your posts in detail, so I am not accusing you of anything - that was just the general atmosphere. What should a moderator do to posts that serve no purpose other than to attack the host organisation and to urge people to desert it and go elsewhere?
I'm not going to make bold assertions about my own integrity and what I will do as a board member of the Mambo Foundation. My record past and present is the criterion for judging that. No doubt people will make that judgement as they think fit. Read my past "Devil's Advocate" articles if you want a guide.
What can be achieved in the future is the real issue, and I am very happy to discuss anything relevant to that. But I'm not looking to cast blame or make enemies in any quarter
Martin
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan / Absalom Media
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/26 05:51
My assertion regarding Travis was based on the Forge rights layout for the 4.5.x buildbase, seen here:
http://mamboforge.net/project/memberlist.php?group_id=5
Both he and the "Foundation" are listed as project leads, and everyone else, including yourself is listed as a Maintainer.
Who therefore has control over it ? Travis, as he has sign off rights to whatever you as counterpoint in CVS, or you as the project lead ?
I understand how GForge works intimately. I was at one point trying to develop themes and templates for Mambo-related forges, including running the various buildbases (around the time of Robert Castley's lead) If you are a maintainer, you obviously have less rights than Travis, right ?
I believe your words.
I recognise I don't have completely everything, but I do have a few more pieces of the puzzle than you, and you've revised some of the pieces I was missing. Thank you for openly discussing this.
Likewise, I am not looking to cast blame, but to gain some respectability and accountability by being able to question what the Board does. This is where a timeline of events will help as it will provide an understanding of where things broke and what people need to look out for now that the forum has significantly shifted in focus from what it was. This is why I ask questions.
Let me present a scenario to you - as a member of the Foundation, where can you make a request that the hosting arrangements be shifted off Mambo Communities so as to demonstrate that Miro no longer wants ownership or control over Mambo ? After all, it has been Mambo Communities who has been responsible for the censorship of late.
I tried the numerous blackhole email addresses of the Foundation over the last few months. None of them replied.
I tried contacting the Secretary for information.
I tried contacting the PR team lead. No response thus far.
Where should this information go ?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/26 16:36
Thanks for your comments, Lawrence. Mamboforge is hosted and administered by Miro, but that is mere mechanics. The release of software is the responsibility of the core team, of which I am leader, not absolute ruler! Travis is entitled to the same input as any other member of the team.
Certainly there are issues when open source impinges on the commercial world, but there are very few if any large open source projects that do not have relationships with commercial organisations. Those issues can lead to disagreements. In this case, I do not believe that right is entirely on only one side.
But where there are disagreements, they are only likely to be resolved through constructive discussions. The assumption that one party is irrevocably committed to an unacceptable position renders dialogue impossible. I can't hope to deal with questions like "Has Peter Lamont stopped beating his wife?".
Faced with an aggressive campaign of denigration, I think the Mambo organisation has struggled to find an appropriate response. We are now moving on, and as I've said before, all the discussions I am involved in are related to how Mambo can meet and exceed the expectations of its large community of stakeholders.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan / Absalom Media
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/27 11:10
So if the mechanics changed so that Miro was totally removed from their administrative control over Mambo, it would be forseeable that those who have been thrown out of the community for disagreeing with Mambo Communities' actions in managing those forums could be welcomed back, right?
Note that I have clearly delineated between Mambo as a open source product and the company currently sequested to manage the Mambo forums. I am pro-Mambo, but not happy with the level and direction of the company used to manage the forums in dealing with Mambo users.
After all, shouldn't the company employed by the Foundation have the best interests at heart of Mambo users and developers, and not seek to throw people off the forums merely because they disagree with the companies' level of control in censoring discussion ?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/27 20:04
Well, you're rather pursuing the line of "Will you stop Peter Lamont beating his wife?" here!
As you know very well, Peter Lamont and Miro have been closely involved with and supportive of Mambo since its inception. I think it would be grossly unfair to suggest that the Miro people want anything other than the best possible future for Mambo. Peter has a very strong personal commitment to Mambo.
The problem is that recently there has been sharp disagreement on what counts as the best future for Mambo. These things happen, and unfortunately there has been a good deal of bitterness and more than a few cross words.
All the same, everyone involved with Mambo accepts that nothing is perfect, and we are constantly discussing possible changes in every aspect of the organisation. Change is hard to handle, though, and intransigent and harshly expressed views are often counter productive. Nobody knows the ultimately ideal way to run an open source project.
Noone in the Mambo organisation is wanting to cut anyone off. You will see that today, with the full agreement of everyone at Mambo, I have written to Andrew Eddie suggesting areas for collaboration. The only thing we object to is discussion that has no purpose but to denigrate and attack.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/27 20:57
Martin,
I find your allegation regarding my line of thought unfounded. Here is why it remains unfounded.
Obviously the best thing for Mambo as Mambo is to have a forum that encourages interaction, freedom of speech and an appropriate level of tradition and dissent. That will bring people in because they know it is a safe place to openly discuss ideas related to Mambo.
Within the current confines of the Mambo forums, managed by Mambo Communities, that is not possible.
How do I know it remains outside of possibility ?
Before I was banned, I posed a question to the forum mods regarding the best place where Foundation matters could be openly discussed without undue pressure from the Board. After all, how can you judge the standing of the Board if all the Board does is control the very forums for discussion that relate to Mambo ? That seems like a conflict of interest in the very least, because members of the Foundation should have the freedom to disagree with the Board's direction and not be punished for their views. How do I know this ? I am working in an association with over 8000 members across Australia. Not every member in that association holds the same ideas as the Board, yet they remain part of the association. They still pay their dues even if they don't agree with everything, and as such, voice their concerns. They still have the same rights within the association as everyone else.
The same principles should apply to the Mambo Foundation. Members should be free to dissent with the Board on matters and not be punished for holding independent views whilst being part of the Foundation. Unfortunately the very state of play within the Foundation over the last two months shows that this has been the furthest thing from the truth. I was probably their first and most public scapegoat in this regard. So does dissent matter now in the Foundation, or is it still seen to be a thing to be quashed ?
Furthermore, how can the new forums rules encourage safe and open debate when the moderators have absolute, unquestioned discretionary powers to ban people without recourse or appeal ? Doesn't it seem a little contradictory to have moderators who can enact discretionary powers on a whim when you're trying to encourage people to discuss and debate Mambo as a product ?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/27 21:18
Postscript:
Martin, I just read the open letter you posted on the Mambo forums. Such action is welcome in my eyes. I have two queries though:
What happens to those 3PDs locked out of the Mambo sphere because of the way Mambo Communities has treated them ?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/27 22:01
I'm sorry, Lawrence, but your last two posts just give me the overwhelming impression that you're not looking for solutions or compromises. You don't accept that other people might have legitimate interests that take their thinking in slightly different directions from yours.
Why not move forwards instead of forever going over past events and berating people? Most of the forums are there to provide mutual support. When every thread is being hijacked with arguments over policy and suggestions to leave and support another setup, the moderators are in an immensely difficult situation.
The current Mambo teams have a positive attitude, and are prepared to work with ANYONE who is prepared to be constructive and develop solutions to the many problems, technical and practical that face us.
There is nothing about the present setup that prevents us from doing positive work towards a better Mambo. Nobody claims things are perfect, human institutions never are. But it is workable and by positive actions can be further improved.
Post edited by: admin, at: 2005/10/27 17:02
Post edited by: admin, at: 2005/10/27 17:02
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/28 05:37
I am looking for solutions and compromises. That is why I asked the question regarding the Foundation membership and how it is treated on the Mambo forums in the first place.
Part of those solutions and compromises might include:
- Miro being part of the Foundation membership but not holding full control or direction of the forums.
- The ability for people to openly discuss issues as Mambo users and Foundation members without the threat of censorship, either at the forums or on the Forge.
I would not be publically correcting your moderators views regarding WAI and other technologies if I didn't have the skills or resources necessary to deal with the issues the end-users of Mambo are facing.
I recognise that other people may have legitimate interests that take their thinking in slightly different directions from mine. That is not a problem that I am dealing with. The issues I am dealing with are needed to be the same for every association, especially an open source one. These issues include transparency, freedom of speech, ethical standards, fair business practice, dealing with conflicts of interest, greviance and unfair dismissal.
The interests and direction still need to conform to ethical standards and fair business practices and the rest of the behaviour that should be appropriate and in line with the laws of the laws regarding any body where volunteers are involved.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/29 04:45
Different people have different ideas, and there is no single structure that is always the most appropriate for open source projects.
I'm not aware of any unlawful actions by the Mambo organisation.
There are disputes about what has happened, but I really do not want to go dredging through history. I'm not aware of any current problems that prevent us from making excellent progress towards an even better Mambo.
I don't doubt that your skills are excellent, and I hope that you are able to deploy them effectively.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/29 09:22
Current problems stopping progression towards an even better Mambo:
Both your PR head and your supermod seem suspicious of people who respond reasonably in disagreement with their ideas:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showpost.php?p=298478&postcount=3
and
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showpost.php?p=298488&postcount=5
A better Mambo is one where the team or the moderators don't punish dissent, and the level of suspicion directed towards groovinmambo won't bring more people in the door.
The previous structure and rules for the Mambo forum prior to the Foundation taking over through Mambo Communities worked. Since then the rules have significantly changed. How does this create a better Mambo ?
As for your collaborative discussion claims (or as the moderators on Mambo like to call it, an announcement, from where I stand, because you posted it openly before directing it to Andrew Eddie, you may have harmed the capacity for collaboration by taking the choice and path you have.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/10/29 14:22
Ricoflan and Hazman were expressing their personal concern, you'll have to talk to them about that. Please make allowance for the fact that some people in the present Mambo organisation have lived through an acutely difficult period, and feel very bruised by it. There is not just one group that feels hard done by.
It isn't a matter of punishing dissent, it is simply that the forums were going wildly off topic much of the time. People felt that there was a campaign against the Mambo organisation that had no constructive purpose, and was damaging the forums. The kind of posts that created problems had nothing to do with improving the Mambo software. They were completely devoid of suggestions that I could use for moving the Mambo product forward.
So far as I know, no rules have changed, and the structure of the Mambo organisation is evolving steadily, with no abrupt changes.
It is ironic that the Joomla moderators immediately suppressed discussion on my posting about collaboration. I don't really see how the manner of raising a significant issue should matter so much. There was certainly a fear, whether justified or not, among many of my colleagues that a private communication might well be misused. The offer of collaboration was therefore made in a very public way to minimise any misunderstandings. We wanted everyone to know what we were doing. Is that so bad?
The offer was entirely genuine, and I have expanded on the kind of matters to which it could apply in the Mambo forum (I can't do so in the Joomla forum because the thread was closed). I was perfectly willing to continue exploring the issues. It seems that the Joomla team is not, and I'm afraid that I don't find the reasons given convincing. But there we are.
The Mambo team has plenty of ideas for the future, the offer of collaboration was made for no other reason than that we thought it in the best interests of both communities, especially the 3PDs.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/01 07:10
Martin,
Firstly, lets deal with the premeditated miscommunication you're stating.
It is ironic that the Joomla moderators immediately suppressed discussion on my posting about collaboration.
This isn't true. The real discussion has been going on live and well, contrary both to David Geller's claims here:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showpost.php?p=298852&postcount=15
and to your own claims. The relevant thread has always been here:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,14988.0.html
Now the thread your compliant tries to miscast is this thread:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,14937.0.html
You will see Andrew Eddie stated clearly that he would respond to this in the time and place of his own choosing. You can't exactly plead ignorance or "suppression" when Andrew probably asked the mods to give him the freedom to respond at the time and place of his own choosing.
Is that censorship ? No. There were two discussions about the Team Mambo pitch going on, and Andrew has responded to your claims in the first J! thread I mention above. Just in case you don't miss it: Andrew has responded on the J! forums regarding Team Mambo's request
Secondly, Ric and David don't respond to me, so obviously if there is any amount of suspicion or conspiracy or paranoia running around in the "new" improved Team Mambo, that will end up harming the users of Mambo. Why would people want to be part of Mambo when all the Team does is hold suspicion against people for asking questions or disagreeing with them ??
Thirdly, how is suggesting, in line with Peter Lamont's own discussions with me (and his own stated opinion on the forums) that Miro wants to step away from Mambo, that the hosting and management of the forums be taken away from a company run by Miro a bad thing? (Not to mention the censorship which reflects on Mambo Communities ability to run a forum)
Surely that would demonstrate that the Chairman of the Board wants to keep his word publically to users of Mambo. Surely that would allow independence for the Mambo product outside of Miro managing all appreciable physical and digital assets. You want a better Mambo.. Get your chairman to honour his word. Such an act will convey respect and responsibility by the Board to honour the original intent and direction of the Mambo Foundation.
Fourthly, the rules have changed significantly over the last two months. The first subtle change was that discussion on the Foundation was not welcome after the initial announcement thread. See this thread for how and why this policy change came about:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?p=277550#post277550
Rule change 1:
The Mambo forum is provided to discuss the Mambo content management system and associated software, not politics. Please ensure that all posts are relevant to the sub-forums they are located in. The forums rules have been developed over a period of years and are intended to maintain a safe and fair forum environment.
So that means members of the Foundation aren't free to discuss the direction or value of the Board or of the Foundation on Mambo forums that deal with
The Foundation
The Board
It is an implicit censorship against any form of disagreement with the Board.
Rule change 2:
The Mambo Foundation trusts the Forum Moderators to use their best judgment in assessing the intention and good will of people who post on this site. If the Moderator feels that any portion of a posting, including the signature or avatar, is intended to be disruptive or insulting, or otherwise inappropriate in the community context, the Moderator is empowered to remove or alter the post and in worse case scenarios, ban the poster. Of course we also encourage all Moderators to contact the poster first and communicate their concerns, but in the event the situation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the Moderator, we will support the Moderators’ decision and no appeal procedure is available.
This then gives you, the Board and the Foundation discretionary powers to ban people without appeal or recourse. Since Foundation members, are by law, allowed to appeal and have legal recourse for them, this rule contravenes all association fair trading laws that I know of in Australia and the US.
This rule doesn't appear in the Foundation member agreement either so there is variation between contract and application.
You can't exactly plead ignorance on this either, Martin. The rules have been documented as changing over the last few months by various users. This is where your claim:
So far as I know, no rules have changed, and the structure of the Mambo organisation is evolving steadily, with no abrupt changes
falls significantly short of the record available publically to any user using Mambo.
As for this:
The offer was entirely genuine, and I have expanded on the kind of matters to which it could apply in the Mambo forum (I can't do so in the Joomla forum because the thread was closed).
I noticed you did comment in the discussion itself:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,14988.msg96455.html#msg96455
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,14988.msg96619.html#msg96619
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,14988.msg97573.html#msg97573
However, since it was Team Mambo's choice to remove the ACL structures available in Mambo/J! (as per your questions in the J! thread), whatever consequences that means for 3PDs will mean either 3PDs will hate the direction you wish to take the "new Mambo" or they will love it.
So there are some significant issues you might have overlooked in your evaluation of the group you have signed up to. There are possible areas for growth and public accountability that have not be acted on.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/01 07:24
Postscript:
The new Team Mambo seems to be talking about OO a lot, and then I find something on the Forge which suggests you're merging it with Miro's own product base.
Mambo MX is an application framework which was developed by Miro in 2003 to be used as the basis of a new Object Oriented release of Mambo. Mambo MX follows concepts similar to .Net and provides a rapid development environment for application building.
http://mamboforge.net/projects/mambomx/
Project registered on the 5th of July 2005 by Cameron Fraser of Miro, who now remains part of your "Core Team".
It sure seems like Mambo has been brought back completely into the Miro fold (as per my discussions on why NDAs are needed).
Can you publically comment on whether you are integrating Miro's commercial code (MamboMX) into Mambo, or does the NDA stop you?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/01 13:59
Lawrence, I cannot deal in detail with your tirade. When I wrote my last post, the thread that I started in the Joomla forum had been unceremoniously closed. There was no link to anywhere else. The post was not in a restricted area, so it is not obvious why it ever needed to be closed, even if (as I now readily acknowledge) another thread started up in the same forum on the same topic. It still seems that somebody's first response was to stifle the matter.
What you cite as rule changes do not appear to have been changes at all, merely drawing attention to the existing forum rules developed over a number of years. I find it difficult to see anything unreasonable about the statements made. Is it a fundamental human right to be able to take forum threads off topic?? If you think anything is unlawful, you have the option of taking legal action. If I thought the Foundation was acting illegally, I would not wish to be a board member.
The Mambo organisation is developing and will continue to do so. It is working for the best interests of Mambo and the Mambo community. But it cannot simply accept that you have the right to dictate the precise structure that it should adopt or when it should do so. We are listening to all comments, not just yours. The timetable for change is determined by practicalities.
I don't think that you have any grasp of what we are doing with ACL, but there is no sign that you want to have any kind of constructive discussion. Many of your posts both in the Mambo and Joomla forums seem to have no purpose other than to be derogatory.
Your comments on OO simply confirm your determination to find conspiracy everywhere you look. If you consult my profile, publicly available in the "Contact us" section at the Black Sheep Research site, you will find "Taking responsibility for the entire IT provision of a well-known City professional firm, Martin pursued both innovation and efficiency. He was the driving force behind, amongst others, an advanced OO practice management system and early Internet adoption." I worked at that firm from 1988 to 1998, and have continued to be on public record as an advocate of object technology.
Plainly Mambo cannot integrate commercial copyright code into Mambo, which is firmly committed to being an open source product. Nor is there any plan to integrate code that has been put into the open source domain by Miro. However, the team obviously has the possibility of using any material that is not restricted by copyright (whatever its original source), and would be foolish to ignore this.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/02 03:39
There hasn't been any stifling. In fact, in the Joomla thread where it was discussed, Andrew Eddie has stated twice that he declined your offer:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php?topic=14988.msg97640#msg97640
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php?topic=14988.msg99143#msg99143
You have your answer, and the answer is public.
What I cite as rule changes have been rule changes. The J! forum rules the original boilerplate rules set up by Brad Baker, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognise additional discretionary powers and limiting discussion on Foundation direct and policy is a significant change in those rules.
After all, people can compare the original:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,65.0.html
to the Foundation:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/faq.php
Both again remain publically available, and even Travis has acknowledged that there is a change in rules:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?t=61516
If the staff of Miro state there is a rule change, there is a rule change, right ? 
As for this:
I don't think that you have any grasp of what we are doing with ACL, but there is no sign that you want to have any kind of constructive discussion. Many of your posts both in the Mambo and Joomla forums seem to have no purpose other than to be derogatory.
I value constructive discussion. That is why I have asked the questions of you that I have. Merely because I have more information at hand which remains credible does not mean if the information differs from your version of events, my information is derogatory.
Merely because I disagree with the ideas presented does not mean I can go around calling people an "arse" and not get kicked off the Mambo forums for repeated bad language.
That is why I let Regs play his hellbanning card towards the mods - he was a test case for the moderation principles that now govern the Mambo forums. 
Now I recognise that you have extensive work in OO. I also recognise that Miro has released its own OO framework for Mambo called MamboMX. The logistics of implementing a new method of handling permissions, with the release of the "new" 4.5.3 at the end of November, means that you and your team are going to essentially remove the core structures of ACL management out of the Mambo product. That's going to take a lot of time and effort.
From where I stand, the MX framework cuts down your development time because it is already OO - that saves you time because then you don't have to build a new "wheel" for Mambo from scratch.
If you actually want to honour the end of November release schedule you've committed to, MamboMX (or a version of it retrofitted to 4.5.x ) looks to be the only possible way that this would be possible.
Oh, and just an aside:
Nor is there any plan to integrate code that has been put into the open source domain by Miro.
The Lonemamber interview with the ex-Miro employee tells a different story for that in the 4.5.3 "Beta", and you're still keeping in the same Updater that was developed in-house by Miro 
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/03 04:22
Hi Lawrence, you say no stifling, yet I still cannot see the justification for closing the original thread. Now the subsequent thread is closed. Andrew Eddie says that nobody is attacked, but I certainly feel personally attacked by all the claims about my motives for the approach to Joomla. How many times do I have to say that the suggestion meant exactly what it said - no more and no less? Now it seems I am discouraged from pointing this out by the moderators at Joomla.
What I have said is not that there was no public response, but that not all the response from Joomla was made public. And parts of the response were really quite personally offensive.
I'm really not willing to rake over history, as I said at the start of this. Not all of the points you make are ones I would disagree with, but I do not think that the way you are going about things is likely to be productive. Nor do I think your attacks on individuals or on Miro generally are justified.
There is no objection at all, in principle, to using code from Miro provided it can be made open source. It will be included, or not included, on its merits. I stand by my statement that there are no current plans to incorporate specific Miro software. But our plans are not set in stone, they are developed in a pragmatic way.
I have to be sceptical about your claims to seeking constructive discussion. There seems nothing constructive about comments like "Didn't someone make a comment somewhere about a certain group needing to start up some copiers ?". It was insulting and irrelevant. The Mambo team is busy creating original software, but is also willing to draw on the pool of open source material, which is precisely the intention of the open source principle.
Our plans for ACL are sophisticated and effective, but I am not willing to discuss details at this stage in the development. The ACL in 4.5.3 will be essentially unchanged. There will be a policy document issued by Mambo within the next couple of weeks that will lay out the principles of our development plans. That will be another opportunity for you to make constructive comments, and I hope that you will take it.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/03 12:08
Martin,
Let's deal in practicalities and evidence..
..yet I still cannot see the justification for closing the original thread. Now the subsequent thread is closed.
I gave you a possible justification for Andrew and the moderators closing the thread and you didn't acknowledge it.
Andrew Eddie says that nobody is attacked, but I certainly feel personally attacked by all the claims about my motives for the approach to Joomla. How many times do I have to say that the suggestion meant exactly what it said - no more and no less? Now it seems I am discouraged from pointing this out by the moderators at Joomla.
You are facing this dilemma because the credibility and respect of the new "Team Mambo" has not been demonstrated. Nobody trusts someone they don't know who just walks in and tries to make rules, policy and direction. I pointed this potential problem out to the Foundation and it looks like the new "Team Mambo" is reaping the consequences of this lack of credibility. Then again, the actions of the Foundation board to this point haven't, by and large, garnered credibility either.
What I have said is not that there was no public response, but that not all the response from Joomla was made public. And parts of the response were really quite personally offensive.
Then the PR team leader is remaining factually incorrect in what he is stating on the Mambo forums.
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?p=299794#post299794
Which part of a list of the standards that J! seeks to follow remains private ?
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,14988.msg99143.html#msg99143
Furthermore, you and your team are lead developers. Alwarren and Tony Scida both pointed out that as lead developers, you are meant to have thicker skin than the responses the community at large is currently seeing of you. Some people say my products at times suck, but I don't go round complaining it's offensive. Merely because it may offend me does not mean their feedback isn't correct or appropriate or doesn't deal with the problems and issues in the best way they know how. IOW, offensiveness isn't a guide to whether it's true or not.
Now what does this mean for me and my approach?
..but I do not think that the way you are going about things is likely to be productive. Nor do I think your attacks on individuals or on Miro generally are justified.
The way I am going about things is productive because Mambo is now part of a publically incorporated association. The one thing that is present in all associations of this nature is public accountability, and the questions I have asked of you and other people relate to the accountability between Miro, Mambo Communities, the Foundation, the Board and the members and users. If the Board or Mambo Communities refuse to be held publically accountable for their roles in what has happened, they demonstrate an anathema to the nature of the association they are involved in. By asking questions regarding public accountability, you, as a Board member, are meant to be responsible and able to supply me the information I need otherwise what use is the Board ?
This is why your statement:
I have to be sceptical about your claims to seeking constructive discussion.
cannot be qualified. As you now know where I am coming from and why I am taking the path I am, you can see that by asking for public accountability, that is part of constructive discussion as part of an association.
There seems nothing constructive about comments like "Didn't someone make a comment somewhere about a certain group needing to start up some copiers ?". It was insulting and irrelevant.
Martin, it was a joke, a parody. Can't you guys laugh at yourselves ? The reason it was a parody was because I study other CMS systems and integrate the ideas behind them into J!/Mambo. It was also a joke because of the ridiculous claims made by two members of the Board in regards to Linuxworld (where I got this comment from).
The Mambo team is busy creating original software, but is also willing to draw on the pool of open source material, which is precisely the intention of the open source principle.
As is J!. The fact was, you can't take a joke. Lighten up, please..
Our plans for ACL are sophisticated and effective, but I am not willing to discuss details at this stage in the development. The ACL in 4.5.3 will be essentially unchanged.
Good to hear the 4.5.3 "Gamma" release has the same ACL (Yes, it's another joke in there, too..)
I'm currently finalising a template for the 4.5.3 Template Comp and my emails to the Foundation address haven't been responded to yet. Was Ric's suggested email address a dedicated blackhole (as I've tried it before and not got a response either)?
That will be another opportunity for you to make constructive comments, and I hope that you will take it.
How can I make constructive comments if my account is still guested/banned/censored and there are certain parties in the Foundation that will not welcome me?
Seems like a tad contradictory to me.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/03 13:48
Lawrence, I haven't time to deal with your post at length. As things stand, I feel deprived of my right to answer allegations against me by the closure of the latest collaboration thread on the Joomla forum. Just as much as you feel deprived of saying what you think on the Mambo forums. No, I cannot see why the original thread was closed. The mere fact that Andrew wanted time to think is not much of a reason for preventing others from expressing an opinion.
You can say I'm humourless if you like, but I am doing my best to deal with other people, in whatever group, with respect and politeness. You are impossible to satisfy. You don't trust anyone who "just walks in and tries to make rules, policy and direction". Yet you are constantly asking for someone to make the rules, policies and directions that you want. Do you want changes or not? What grounds do you have for not trusting me? Guilty by association is a pretty primitive principle, even if there were any grounds for it in the first place.
There is nothing factually incorrect in the statement released by Ric, which was also agreed by me. You are misreading it. There were various responses - my private letter to Andrew was precisely the same as the one published.
As I see it, the issue is not that Joomla is publishing information about standards, the issue is that there simply is no defined interface standard in the area we believe to be important. You're attacking the wrong argument.
The kind of offensive remarks I mention are personal attacks based on nothing, and on no product. What grounds does anyone have for asserting that there is a hidden meaning to my communications? Am I not entitled to a view on that?
No, I don't have a sense of humour, if that requires me to find it funny to be regularly accused of being a blackguard on the strength of no evidence whatsoever. Nor am I making cheap shots at other people's development efforts, before even seeing them.
I can't answer you question about an email address without knowing which one you are talking about.
There is nothing sinister about this, but I cannot continue this correspondence, for the simple reason that I have better things to do with my time.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/03 15:43
You still have the freedom to post, don't you, on the J! forums, right? Why don't you raise this query on there, instead of (somewhat) privately making claims that if they were voiced on J! might be treated differently?
I am by no means impossible to satisfy. All I ask for is information. If you claim something and don't have the evidence to back up your claims, that reflects on the information you have. Fair's fair, after all.
Regarding humour, you were offended by a joke. That is your choice, and a result of how you view those who think differently than you.
As for standards, since all your examples and requests involved touching the ACL structure in some way, when Team Mambo had already made a choice to ditch the existing ACL structures, it would be obvious that the standards are going to be different between J! and Mambo, though Andrew has stated publically you're welcome in the talks he's having with other CMSs.
Obviously the way you are addressing the areas that are important to you is different to J! and since the methods are different, so are the principles and ideals behind it.  ad: That should be your argument dealt with.. Any questions left on it? :cool:
If you want to continue to pitch linguistics as the reason Ric is right, I can simply refer to this very discussion where I pointed out to you twice, before Ric went live, that the answer was public. If you don't want to acknowledge that the information was already public on the 31st October 2005 at 7 am in the morning, that's something you're going to have to deal with. For Ric and yourself to claim something 4 days after the fact is a reach, even on a good day :cool: Information is information and Ric's 4 days late to claim that it was based on private communication.
No, I don't have a sense of humour, if that requires me to find it funny to be regularly accused of being a blackguard on the strength of no evidence whatsoever. Nor am I making cheap shots at other people's development efforts, before even seeing them.
You're still coming across to me as being offended by a joke. Is this a healthy thing for the Core Team Leader to dwell on a percieved offence when the party who he thinks has offended him ?
As for cheap shots, since you endorsed Ric's words:
Perhaps, as the leadership of the Joomla team changes or evolves this opportunity will come again.
Might you care to explain how these words are not a cheap shot at the leadership of J!, implicitly blaming them for the lack of collaboration when in fact the ACL direction you've taken is almost guaranteed to fork Mambo from a 4.5 stable ACL into some new version away from compatibility with PHPGACL?
The blackhole in question is:
feedback@mambo-foundation.org
as stated here:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?p=298457#post298457
by your PR head.
I sent my initial enquiry regarding the Template Comp 5 days ago (30/10/05) and not recieved any response. None of my emails to the Foundation thus far have bounced. They just haven't been responded to.
If you have better things to do, I might suggest one of those better things is to fix the numerous blackhole emails that seem to be littered through the Foundation which refuse to respond.
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/04 01:47
Lawrence, you are wasting time. I really don't care about your cheap shots, but you cannot expect to make them and then be taken seriously. I stand by the recently published statement, and reiterate that there were responses from the Joomla team that were never published. It has never been said that there was not a public response.
It is evident that you fail to grasp the distinction between an interface and an implementation. There is no point in further discussion on this topic.
What you read into our statements is your own distorted point of view. We have always been genuinely willing to cooperate and continue to be so.
What is it that you need to know from the Mambo Foundation that is not covered by published statements?
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/04 07:51
Martin
Two things to consider:
1) I've been discussing the ideas presented in this forum thread with Andrew Eddie, and I have it on very good authority that you are perfectly welcome to start up another thread. If you want to diffuse the offence that you feel, state it publically in the J! forums.
2) As I've been in discussion with Andrew, he has shown me his response to you in regards to this whole collaboration issue, and like himself, I can see nothing offensive in it. I fail to see how developing your own "flavour" for Mambo is a "considerably negative tenor" let alone a problem with transparency and co-operation. As I have reliable evidence when Andrew replied privately to you, for you and Team Mambo to spend the next 4 days in limbo before issuing a statement does seem to send mixed messages to the community you're meant to be supporting.
Please consider 
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Alpaca
Karma: 6
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/04 15:19
Sorry to interrupt your little chat. But this takes too much time out of Martin's schedule. We could have seen Remository 3.5 by now. 
What is it you really want, Lawrence? Not beeing a native speaker I probably missed the finer points in this conversation. Maybe I also skipped a few parts of the whole sermon. Do you want your position in the Mambo dev team back? Do you want future posts of yours in the Mambo forum being excempt from censorship? Do you want Mambo to work together with Joomla!? Or don't you want this?
Please clearly state what you would like to achieve here. The exchange of arguments has gone on sufficiently long enough and I trust either of you has more important things to do.
"You can call me Al."
Joomla! ...because open source matters
Leave a rating for Remository at the Joomla! Extensions Directory! |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/04 15:55
I thought it would be obvious: public accountability. If Martin says stuff as the Core Team Leader and Board Member, it is he who remains accountable to the community at large for his words.
If any other representative can't provide information that should be freely available, they might need to rethink just what their role is.
I've said it often enough. Simple, no?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/07 21:12
Al, you're quite right Lawrence, Andrew was not the only person who wrote to us from the Joomla team. The Mambo team takes care over all its public statements. I have never tried to avoid being accountable for what I say.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
Lawrence Meckan
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/08 03:24
So you're now shifting the blame off the moderators and Andrew Eddie to another person, as yet unnamed ?
Not a good look by any means, Martin.
You felt you couldn't voice your offence at the threads being closed. I offered you a solution, based on my discussions with the J! team. You still as always have the freedom to post on the J! forums about it.
You felt offended by a joke I made. You didn't even quote the emoticon smilie as part of my statement (which signified the tongue in cheek). Why blame me for your own misunderstanding in this respect ?
You and Ric talk about standards, but never state what interface standard matters to you. And then both of you try and blame J! for lack of collaboration.
You have members of your core team making public statements which go against the Foundation Member Agreement on J! forums.
You are responsible for the direction of your team members, correct ?
|
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
admin
Karma: 101
|
Re:History never repeats? - 2005/11/08 03:41
My ground has not shifted at all, I merely provided a clarification. The Mambo team is working on the evolution of clear and robust software interface standards. We made a perfectly genuine offer to collaborate with the Joomla team so as to increase the possibility of common operation of 3PD plugins. Our offer was declined. That is all. I have no more time available for this pointless debate.
Martin Brampton aka Counterpoint
http://aliro.org
http://black-sheep-research.com |
|
|
| | Sorry, you do not currently have permission to write here. |
|
Forum
