Eclipse Community Forums
Forum Search:

Search      Help    Register    Login    Home
Home » General (non-technical) » Eclipse Foundation » [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues
[GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #8776] Sat, 01 January 2005 05:04 Go to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ilias.lazaridis.com

I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to intervent.

Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core in a way
which results in a false reflection of the current status of the issues
and their dependencies.

-

Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
that was out of synch:

this huge "Issue":
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938

an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed known
issues within bugzilla:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13

-

This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was created
out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this thread:

[PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation

-

I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System) the
following Issue [using current title, initial title was different]:

[Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775

-

this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of the
following JSR's:

JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014

Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed (after
looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:

JSR-014 Generics
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777

Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776

Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced loops,
static imports)
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470

Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593

-

I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed documented known
issues) with use of the dependency feature.

-

You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_ the
issues as INVALID - and as the last action, removing dependencies
without any justifying comments.

What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?

Or JSR-176?

He finds obfuscated data.

-

It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real transparency, but
just in keeping the open issues as low as possible.

Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the filed Issues
remain _open_.

This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking transparent
and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.

I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr. Kent
Johnson (IBM).

-

"JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla should reflect
the correct status.

Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users hit on
this information after a search.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9303 is a reply to message #8776] Mon, 03 January 2005 04:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Philippe Mulet is currently offline Philippe Mulet
Messages: 229
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0 support on
its web page:
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan

We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not really
need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick the web page.
At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve all remaining
problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects to help us; we have a
couple non specific defects which are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I agree in a
clearer way, but still duplicates).

Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0 effort
started, and you should have better communicated with the JDT Core team so
as not to be disrupting our effort.

I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since they are
inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks for your interest in
our J2SE 5.0 effort.

"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to intervent.
>
> Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core in a way
> which results in a false reflection of the current status of the issues
> and their dependencies.
>
> -
>
> Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
> that was out of synch:
>
> this huge "Issue":
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>
> an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed known
> issues within bugzilla:
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>
> -
>
> This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was created
> out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this thread:
>
> [PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>
http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>
> -
>
> I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System) the
> following Issue [using current title, initial title was different]:
>
> [Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>
> -
>
> this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of the
> following JSR's:
>
> JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>
> Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed (after
> looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>
> JSR-014 Generics
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>
> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>
> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced loops,
> static imports)
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>
> Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>
> -
>
> I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed documented known
> issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>
> -
>
> You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_ the
> issues as INVALID - and as the last action, removing dependencies
> without any justifying comments.
>
> What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>
> Or JSR-176?
>
> He finds obfuscated data.
>
> -
>
> It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real transparency, but
> just in keeping the open issues as low as possible.
>
> Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the filed Issues
> remain _open_.
>
> This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking transparent
> and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>
> I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr. Kent
> Johnson (IBM).
>
> -
>
> "JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
> implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla should reflect
> the correct status.
>
> Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users hit on
> this information after a search.
>
> .
>
> --
> http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9327 is a reply to message #9303] Mon, 03 January 2005 09:31 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ilias.lazaridis.com

Philippe Mulet wrote:
[moved down into context]
> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
> news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>> intervent.

Awaiting a reaction.

Please ensure the transparency of the development process.

>> Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core in
>> a way which results in a false reflection of the current status of
>> the issues and their dependencies.
>>
>> -
>>
>> Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found
>> information that was out of synch:
>>
>> this huge "Issue":
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>
>> an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed known
>> issues within bugzilla:
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13

> The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
> support on its web page:
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan

The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which proof this).

The status _is_ not accurate:

* The open and the known issues are not filed.
* links were not provided within the plan.
* Interdependencies were not shown.

[I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is hidden
from public.]

>> This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>> created out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this thread:
>>
>> [PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
> http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>
>
>> -
>>
>> I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System) the
>> following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>> different]:
>>
>> [Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>
>> -
>>
>> this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of the
>> following JSR's:
>>
>> JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>
>> Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed (after
>> looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>
>> JSR-014 Generics
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>
>> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>
>> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>> loops, static imports)
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>
>> Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>
>> -
>>
>> I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed documented
>> known issues) with use of the dependency feature.

> We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick the
> web page.

Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not that
relevant.

Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known issues.

The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling users
to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if they like to
boost development.

Please remember that this is an open-source project.

> At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to
> solve all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific
> defects to help us; we have a couple non specific defects which are
> representing committed 3.1 plan items,

are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938

which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?

> and do not need extra ones to
> simply reformulate them (yes I agree in a clearer way, but still
> duplicates).

So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?

I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.

>> You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM)
>> _closes_ the issues as INVALID - and as the last action, removing
>> dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>
>> What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>
>> Or JSR-176?
>>
>> He finds obfuscated data.
>>
>> -
>>
>> It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real transparency,
>> but just in keeping the open issues as low as possible.
>>
>> Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the filed
>> Issues remain _open_.
>>
>> This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>> transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>
>> I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr. Kent
>> Johnson (IBM).
>>
>> -
>>
>> "JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from
>> beeing implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>> should reflect the correct status.

> Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0 effort
> started, and you should have better communicated with the JDT Core
> team so as not to be disrupting our effort.

I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which will
take a few months to finish.

I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within JDT.Core)

But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known issues)

>> Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users hit
>> on this information after a search.

> I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since they
> are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks for your
> interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.

So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?

Feel free.

As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.

The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the JDT.Core
team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of the
development, whilst using the resources of this project.

....

except:

You could state what should become obvious to every reader:

"We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core. That's
the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized within _one_
component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes, really! the
compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So, don't expect that
we will allow you to create a transparent dependency-tree, thus everyone
is able to understand within minutes the status and the
interconnections. We will fight this, whilst risking to look like dumbs
who do not understand the difference between a duplicate and a
depending-on relation. We will even take the risk to state that an JSR
is not worth an dedicated issue within bugzilla - and has to be marked
as invalid."

then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
within this project.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9351 is a reply to message #9327] Tue, 04 January 2005 16:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Milinkovich is currently offline Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.

Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You opened
several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we closed by the
developer(s). They were well within their rights to do so. I am satisfied
that Kent did the right thing.

Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open source
project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try learning how it
actually does work and participating using the same rules of engagement as
everyone else?

Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for developers.
The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported not-for-profit organization
which is focused on meeting the needs of its members and supporting the
requirements of the project developers. For users to be effective in
promoting their interests, they need to communicate using the channels and
processes which are in place. Agitating for separate channels that better
suit your personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's
time.

In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development process
works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making plans. Philippe
did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning document ---
which is available to all --- and you return the favour by implying that he
is hiding information and maintaining hidden plans. That is *not* how you
win friends with anyone.

In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.

/mike

"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>> intervent.
>
> Awaiting a reaction.
>
> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9375 is a reply to message #9351] Wed, 05 January 2005 14:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ilias.lazaridis.com

Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.

Resolving.

"abuse of power and position"

[I do not accept this silently, like other users.]

> Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
> opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
> closed by the developer(s).

"duplicative" => false (see [1])
"unnecessary" => false (see [2])

> They were well within their rights to do so.

of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]

> I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.

I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.

> Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
> source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
> learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
> rules of engagement as everyone else?

I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):

see [3]

> Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
> developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
> not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
> its members and supporting the requirements of the project
> developers.

I understand.

> For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
> they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
> in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
> personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.

I don't agitate for separate channels.

I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.

see [4]

> In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
> process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
> plans.

This information is false.

Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660

Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
dedicated issue?

One was 'accepted', see [5]

> Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
> document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour

by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]

> by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
> plans.

I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]

[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]

> That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.

I don't want to win friends.

I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
file issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.

[9]

> In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.

neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.

I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and status:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5

I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.

> /mike
>
> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
> news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>>> intervent.
>>
>> Awaiting a reaction.
>>
>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.

-

> ilias wrote:
>> Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>
>>> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>>> intervent.
>>
>>
>> Awaiting a reaction.
>>
>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>
>>>> Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>> in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>> status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>

[6]

>>>> Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found
>>>> information that was out of synch:
>>>>
>>>> this huge "Issue":
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>
>>>> an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>> known issues within bugzilla:
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>
>>> The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
>>> support on its web page:
>>> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>> proof this).
>>
>> The status _is_ not accurate:
>>
>> * The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>> provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>

[7]

>> [I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>> hidden from public.]
>>

[3]

>>>> This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>>>> created out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>> thread:
>>>>
>>>> [PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation

[4]

>>>> I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>> the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>> different]:

[5]

>>>> [Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>> the following JSR's:
>>>>
>>>> JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>
>>>> Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>> (after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>
>>>> JSR-014 Generics
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>
>>>> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>
>>>> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>>>> loops, static imports)
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>
>>>> Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>> documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>
>>
>>> We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>> the web page.
>>
>> Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>> non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>> that relevant.
>>
>> Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>> issues.
>>
>> The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>> users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>> they like to boost development.
>>
>> Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>
>>> At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>> all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific
>>> defects to help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>> are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>
>> are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>
>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>
>> which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>
>>> and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>> agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>
>> So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?

[1]

>> I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>> difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>
>>>> You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM)
>>>> _closes_ the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>> removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>

[9]

>>>> What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or JSR-176?
>>>>
>>>> He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>> transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>> possible.
>>>>
>>>> Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>> filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>
>>>> This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>> transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>
>>>> I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>> Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> "JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from
>>>> beeing implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>> should reflect the correct status.
>>
>>
>>> Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>> effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>> JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>
>> I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>> will take a few months to finish.
>>
>> I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>> JDT.Core)
>>
>> But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>> issues)
>>

[2]

>>>> Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>> hit on this information after a search.
>>
>>> I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>> they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>> for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>
>> So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>
>> Feel free.
>>
>> As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>
>> The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>> JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>> the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>
>> ....
>>
>> except:
>>

[8]

>> You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>
>> "We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>> That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>> within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>> really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>> don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>> dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>> the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>> risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>> between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>> the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>> within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>
>> then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>> within this project.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9399 is a reply to message #9375] Wed, 05 January 2005 18:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: myname(with.between names).lombardisoftware.com

I hate to spend time on arguing about this, since Ilias obviously don't
listen to any form of reason, but I seem to be sucked in anyway.

I'm not going to argue who's method in question (JDT teams or Ilias') is
more transparent or better, because frankly it is totally irrelevant.


The main responsibility of a bugtracking system (regardles of where) is to
let the developers and testers know what is broken/wanted enhancements,
what has been fixed and when it was fixed. If any developer deems two
reports they got to be the same, it is to his/her discression alone to join
these two bugs as the tool is for him/her and not the end users (like
myself). If an end user disagrees he/she can state that and explain why
they think so (I've done so several times), but in the end its the
developers who knows if they need both issues open or not to get things
done right, not me or you. In our company, the support group, pre-sellers
and others that has access to our bug tracking system, often gets their
issues closed or duped when they don't think its right, but that's up to me
(or other developers) and not them.

I can complain all I want that an issue is closed or they wont fix it. If I
want something done I always have the possibility to create a patch myself.
And even if they don't like my patch, I can always take the source and
patch it myself. That's the joy of open source.


Reporting/updating of progress, requirements, plans is also not something
anyone _have_ to do either. Again, this is in the sole discression of the
people working on the open source project, not the end user. End users can
suggest changes, but you cannot demand (you can try, but it's the best way
to be ignored fast, I'm sure you have some experience in that :D ). People
mostly do this in their spare time, and they can work on what they want,
not what you want. In fact, if Kent keeps the status of the Java5 project
on a whiteboard in inner Mongolia, that is up to him, not you or me (not
that that's being done, it is just an example). If I wanted more details,
I'll either ask on a group for info (like eclipse.tools.jdt), or send the
people involved an email. If they get enough requests for something, I'm
sure they would make it publically available instead of responding to
everyone individually. But how they keep track of their own progress is not
up to me or you, it is up to them (and whoever they work for if any).


In any case, to sum up:

* Bugzilla is mainly for developers and testers. They can organize it the
way they want, not the way you or I might want.
* Status updates is done when the people involved developing wants to in
the granularity they want to, not when/what you or I want.
* How/If to keep status is up to the developers, not me or you.


- Morten Moeller
Lombardi Software
http://www.lombardisoftware.com/









ilias wrote:

> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>> I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
>> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
>
> Resolving.
>
> "abuse of power and position"
>
> [I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
>
>> Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
>> opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
>> closed by the developer(s).
>
> "duplicative" => false (see [1])
> "unnecessary" => false (see [2])
>
>> They were well within their rights to do so.
>
> of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
>
>> I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>
> I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
>
>> Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
>> source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
>> learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
>> rules of engagement as everyone else?
>
> I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
> already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
>
> see [3]
>
>> Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
>> developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
>> not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
>> its members and supporting the requirements of the project
>> developers.
>
> I understand.
>
>> For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
>> they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
>> in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
>> personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
>
> I don't agitate for separate channels.
>
> I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
>
> see [4]
>
>> In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
>> process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
>> plans.
>
> This information is false.
>
> Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>
> Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
> dedicated issue?
>
> One was 'accepted', see [5]
>
>> Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
>> document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
>
> by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
>
>> by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
>> plans.
>
> I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
>
> [Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>
>> That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
>
> I don't want to win friends.
>
> I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
> file issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
>
> [9]
>
>> In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
>
> neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
>
> I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
> status:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>
> I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>
>> /mike
>>
>> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>> news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>>>> intervent.
>>>
>>> Awaiting a reaction.
>>>
>>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>
> -
>
>> ilias wrote:
>>> Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>>
>>>> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>>>> intervent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Awaiting a reaction.
>>>
>>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>
>>>>> Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>>> in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>>> status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>
> [6]
>
>>>>> Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found
>>>>> information that was out of synch:
>>>>>
>>>>> this huge "Issue":
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>
>>>>> an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>>> known issues within bugzilla:
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>>
>>>> The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
>>>> support on its web page:
>>>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>>> proof this).
>>>
>>> The status _is_ not accurate:
>>>
>>> * The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>>> provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>>
>
> [7]
>
>>> [I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>>> hidden from public.]
>>>
>
> [3]
>
>>>>> This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>>>>> created out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>>> thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> [PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>>
>>>>
http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>
> [4]
>
>>>>> I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>>> the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>>> different]:
>
> [5]
>
>>>>> [Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>>> the following JSR's:
>>>>>
>>>>> JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>>
>>>>> Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>>> (after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> JSR-014 Generics
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>>>>> loops, static imports)
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>>> documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>>> the web page.
>>>
>>> Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>>> non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>>> that relevant.
>>>
>>> Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>>> users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>>> they like to boost development.
>>>
>>> Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>>
>>>> At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>>> all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific
>>>> defects to help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>>> are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>>
>>> are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>
>>> which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>>
>>>> and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>>> agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>>
>>> So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
>
> [1]
>
>>> I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>>> difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>>
>>>>> You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM)
>>>>> _closes_ the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>>> removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>>
>
> [9]
>
>>>>> What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or JSR-176?
>>>>>
>>>>> He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>>> transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>>> filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>>> transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>>> Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> "JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from
>>>>> beeing implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>>> should reflect the correct status.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>>> effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>>> JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>>
>>> I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>>> will take a few months to finish.
>>>
>>> I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>>> JDT.Core)
>>>
>>> But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>>> issues)
>>>
>
> [2]
>
>>>>> Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>>> hit on this information after a search.
>>>
>>>> I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>>> they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>>> for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>>
>>> So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>>
>>> Feel free.
>>>
>>> As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>>
>>> The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>>> JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>>> the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> except:
>>>
>
> [8]
>
>>> You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>
>>> "We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>> That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>> within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>> really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>> don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>> dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>> the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>> risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>> between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>> the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>> within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>
>>> then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>> within this project.
>
> .
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9424 is a reply to message #9375] Wed, 05 January 2005 20:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Milinkovich is currently offline Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Ilias,

Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.

Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position". Like I said, I am
satisfied that Kent did the right thing.

If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.

/mike

"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
news:crheh8$sda$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>> I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
>> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
>
> Resolving.
>
> "abuse of power and position"
>
> [I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
>
>> Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
>> opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
>> closed by the developer(s).
>
> "duplicative" => false (see [1])
> "unnecessary" => false (see [2])
>
>> They were well within their rights to do so.
>
> of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
>
>> I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>
> I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
>
>> Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
>> source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
>> learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
>> rules of engagement as everyone else?
>
> I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
> already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
>
> see [3]
>
>> Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
>> developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
>> not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
>> its members and supporting the requirements of the project
>> developers.
>
> I understand.
>
>> For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
>> they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
>> in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
>> personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
>
> I don't agitate for separate channels.
>
> I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
>
> see [4]
>
>> In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
>> process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
>> plans.
>
> This information is false.
>
> Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>
> Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
> dedicated issue?
>
> One was 'accepted', see [5]
>
>> Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
>> document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
>
> by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
>
>> by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
>> plans.
>
> I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
>
> [Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>
>> That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
>
> I don't want to win friends.
>
> I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to file
> issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
>
> [9]
>
>> In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
>
> neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
>
> I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
> status:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>
> I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>
>> /mike
>>
>> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>> news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to intervent.
>>>
>>> Awaiting a reaction.
>>>
>>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>
> -
>
>> ilias wrote:
>>> Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>>
>>>> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to intervent.
>>>
>>>
>>> Awaiting a reaction.
>>>
>>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>
>>>>> Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>>> in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>>> status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>
> [6]
>
>>>>> Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
>>>>> that was out of synch:
>>>>>
>>>>> this huge "Issue":
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>
>>>>> an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>>> known issues within bugzilla:
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>>
>>>> The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0 support
>>>> on its web page:
>>>> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>>> proof this).
>>>
>>> The status _is_ not accurate:
>>>
>>> * The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>>> provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>>
>
> [7]
>
>>> [I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>>> hidden from public.]
>>>
>
> [3]
>
>>>>> This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was created
>>>>> out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>>> thread:
>>>>>
>>>>> [PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>>
>>>> http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>
> [4]
>
>>>>> I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>>> the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>>> different]:
>
> [5]
>
>>>>> [Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>>> the following JSR's:
>>>>>
>>>>> JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>>
>>>>> Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>>> (after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>>
>>>>> JSR-014 Generics
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced loops,
>>>>> static imports) https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>>
>>>>> Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>>> documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>>
>>>
>>>> We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>>> the web page.
>>>
>>> Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>>> non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>>> that relevant.
>>>
>>> Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>>> users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>>> they like to boost development.
>>>
>>> Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>>
>>>> At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>>> all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects to
>>>> help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>>> are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>>
>>> are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>
>>> which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>>
>>>> and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>>> agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>>
>>> So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
>
> [1]
>
>>> I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>>> difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>>
>>>>> You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_
>>>>> the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>>> removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>>
>
> [9]
>
>>>>> What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or JSR-176?
>>>>>
>>>>> He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>>> transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>>> possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>>> filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>>> transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>>> Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>>
>>>>> "JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
>>>>> implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>>> should reflect the correct status.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>>> effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>>> JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>>
>>> I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>>> will take a few months to finish.
>>>
>>> I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>>> JDT.Core)
>>>
>>> But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>>> issues)
>>>
>
> [2]
>
>>>>> Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>>> hit on this information after a search.
>>>
>>>> I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>>> they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>>> for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>>
>>> So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>>
>>> Feel free.
>>>
>>> As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>>
>>> The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>>> JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>>> the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>> except:
>>>
>
> [8]
>
>>> You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>
>>> "We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>> That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>> within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>> really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>> don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>> dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>> the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>> risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>> between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>> the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>> within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>
>>> then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>> within this project.
>
> .
>
> --
> http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9450 is a reply to message #9424] Thu, 06 January 2005 05:44 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Philippe Mulet is currently offline Philippe Mulet
Messages: 229
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I closed all offending PRs again. Leaving only one which provides actual
value (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81974).

"Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org> wrote in message
news:cri431$q2$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Ilias,
>
> Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.
>
> Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position". Like I said, I am
> satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>
> If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
> developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
> terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.
>
> /mike
>
> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
> news:crheh8$sda$1@www.eclipse.org...
> > Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> >> I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
> >> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
> >
> > Resolving.
> >
> > "abuse of power and position"
> >
> > [I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
> >
> >> Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
> >> opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
> >> closed by the developer(s).
> >
> > "duplicative" => false (see [1])
> > "unnecessary" => false (see [2])
> >
> >> They were well within their rights to do so.
> >
> > of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
> >
> >> I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
> >
> > I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
> >
> >> Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
> >> source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
> >> learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
> >> rules of engagement as everyone else?
> >
> > I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
> > already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
> >
> > see [3]
> >
> >> Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
> >> developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
> >> not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
> >> its members and supporting the requirements of the project
> >> developers.
> >
> > I understand.
> >
> >> For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
> >> they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
> >> in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
> >> personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
> >
> > I don't agitate for separate channels.
> >
> > I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
> >
> > see [4]
> >
> >> In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
> >> process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
> >> plans.
> >
> > This information is false.
> >
> > Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
> >
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
> >
> > Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
> > dedicated issue?
> >
> > One was 'accepted', see [5]
> >
> >> Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
> >> document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
> >
> > by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
> >
> >> by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
> >> plans.
> >
> > I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
> >
> > [Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
> >
> >> That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
> >
> > I don't want to win friends.
> >
> > I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
file
> > issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
> >
> > [9]
> >
> >> In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
> >
> > neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
> >
> > I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
> > status:
> >
> > https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
> >
> > I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
> >
> >> /mike
> >>
> >> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
> >> news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
> >>
> >>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
intervent.
> >>>
> >>> Awaiting a reaction.
> >>>
> >>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
> >
> > -
> >
> >> ilias wrote:
> >>> Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
> >>>
> >>>> "ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
> >>>>
> >>>>> I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
intervent.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Awaiting a reaction.
> >>>
> >>> Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
> >>>
> >>>>> Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
> >>>>> in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
> >>>>> status of the issues and their dependencies.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >
> > [6]
> >
> >>>>> Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
> >>>>> that was out of synch:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this huge "Issue":
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
> >>>>>
> >>>>> an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
> >>>>> known issues within bugzilla:
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
> >>>
> >>>> The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
support
> >>>> on its web page:
> >>>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
> >>> proof this).
> >>>
> >>> The status _is_ not accurate:
> >>>
> >>> * The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
> >>> provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
> >>>
> >
> > [7]
> >
> >>> [I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
> >>> hidden from public.]
> >>>
> >
> > [3]
> >
> >>>>> This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
created
> >>>>> out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
> >>>>> thread:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
> >>>>
> >>>>
http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
> >
> > [4]
> >
> >>>>> I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
> >>>>> the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
> >>>>> different]:
> >
> > [5]
> >
> >>>>> [Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
> >>>>> the following JSR's:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
> >>>>> (after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JSR-014 Generics
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
loops,
> >>>>> static imports) https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
> >>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
> >>>>> documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
> >>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
> >>>> the web page.
> >>>
> >>> Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
> >>> non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
> >>> that relevant.
> >>>
> >>> Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
> >>> issues.
> >>>
> >>> The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
> >>> users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
> >>> they like to boost development.
> >>>
> >>> Please remember that this is an open-source project.
> >>>
> >>>> At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
> >>>> all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects
to
> >>>> help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
> >>>> are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
> >>>
> >>> are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
> >>>
> >>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
> >>>
> >>> which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
> >>>
> >>>> and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
> >>>> agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
> >>>
> >>> So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >>> I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
> >>> difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
> >>>
> >>>>> You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_
> >>>>> the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
> >>>>> removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
> >>>>>
> >
> > [9]
> >
> >>>>> What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or JSR-176?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He finds obfuscated data.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
> >>>>> transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
> >>>>> possible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
> >>>>> filed Issues remain _open_.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
> >>>>> transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
> >>>>> Kent Johnson (IBM).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
> >>>>> implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
> >>>>> should reflect the correct status.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
> >>>> effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
> >>>> JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
> >>>
> >>> I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
> >>> will take a few months to finish.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
> >>> JDT.Core)
> >>>
> >>> But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
> >>> issues)
> >>>
> >
> > [2]
> >
> >>>>> Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
> >>>>> hit on this information after a search.
> >>>
> >>>> I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
> >>>> they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
> >>>> for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
> >>>
> >>> So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
> >>>
> >>> Feel free.
> >>>
> >>> As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
> >>>
> >>> The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
> >>> JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
> >>> the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
> >>>
> >>> ....
> >>>
> >>> except:
> >>>
> >
> > [8]
> >
> >>> You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
> >>>
> >>> "We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
> >>> That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
> >>> within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
> >>> really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
> >>> don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
> >>> dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
> >>> the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
> >>> risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
> >>> between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
> >>> the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
> >>> within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
> >>>
> >>> then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
> >>> within this project.
> >
> > .
> >
> > --
> > http://lazaridis.com
>
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9473 is a reply to message #9399] Thu, 06 January 2005 07:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ilias.lazaridis.com

Morten Moeller wrote:
> I hate to spend time on arguing about this, since Ilias obviously don't
> listen to any form of reason, but I seem to be sucked in anyway.

?

> I'm not going to argue who's method in question (JDT teams or Ilias') is
> more transparent or better, because frankly it is totally irrelevant.

of course it is not irrelevant.

Transparency is a _requirement_ of the Eclipse Foundation.

> The main responsibility of a bugtracking system (regardles of where) is to
[...] - (general and personal project comments, not applicable to eclipse)
>
> Reporting/updating of progress, requirements, plans is also not something
> anyone _have_ to do either. Again, this is in the sole discression of the
> people working on the open source project, not the end user.
[...]

the above information is false.

plan _transparency_ is a requirement of the Eclipse Foundation.

[...] - (further comments not processed, as writer is missinformed about
the eclipse foundation development process).

you should read the bylaws and further documents of the Eclipse Foundation.

> In any case, to sum up:
>
> * Bugzilla is mainly for developers and testers. They can organize it the
> way they want, not the way you or I might want.
> * Status updates is done when the people involved developing wants to in
> the granularity they want to, not when/what you or I want.
> * How/If to keep status is up to the developers, not me or you.

You have really a _very_ false view of the eclipse Foundations
Development process.

They are much more liberal as they know.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9495 is a reply to message #9424] Thu, 06 January 2005 08:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ilias.lazaridis.com

Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> Ilias,
>
> Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.

I've read it, but he's obivously very missinformed about the eclipse
foundations development process.

I'm wondering that you rate it as "excellent".

Didn't you detect that his writing were generally, and would violate
eclipse foundations tranparency directive?

or did you read just the final summary:

" * Bugzilla is mainly for developers and testers. They can organize
it the way they want, not the way you or I might want.
* Status updates is done when the people involved developing wants
to in the granularity they want to, not when/what you or I want.
* How/If to keep status is up to the developers, not me or you.
"

which is again not valid for the eclipse foundation.

> Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position".

Declaring valid Issues (which affect JSR's) as invalid, whilst closing
them is not their job.

Disrupting a valid user contributed dependency tree, which reflects
reality, without any justifications is not their job:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5

> Like I said, I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.

To keep bugzilla saying that J2SE 5.0 is implemented within JDT.Core?

The right thing for whom?

For the users, which search for information within bugzilla?

Or for the IBM marketin machine?

> If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
> developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
> terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.

You are "satisfied" with the abusive behaviour of the JDT.Core team.

Thus I believe that you will not resist to abuse your power and position
to terminate my access.

I've just reopened the dedicated issues, thus a user which searches
within bugzilla sees the real status of the JSR's:

JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced loops,
static imports)
Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
Implement JSR-014 Generics

The dependency shows now the correct status:

https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5

[note to readers: I've not recreated the dependencies, which IBM
employees have removed, to showcase the reduced transparency]

-

btw: can you please answer the open questions below.

-

>>Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>>
>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>>
>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>dedicated issue?

?

>>[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]

?

>>I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.

>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9519 is a reply to message #9450] Thu, 06 January 2005 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: ilias.lazaridis.com

Philippe Mulet wrote:
> I closed all offending PRs again. Leaving only one which provides actual
> value (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81974).
[...]

"offending"

What is "offending" with issues which subject JSR's?

Are they offending to users, which hit immedieatly on the JSR, whilst
seeing immediately the status _and_ the exact interconnection of the
issues (transparency)?

Or are they offending for the IBM JDT.Core team, as they show their
inability to fulfill the implementation?

JSR-176, JSR-175, JSR-014, JSR-201
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470

4 entries for 4 JSR's.

The IBM team closes those issues, without those JSR's being fully
implemented within JDT.Core.

The eclipse foundation director supports this irrational behaviour,
which _violates_ the defined development proecesses of the foundation.

Once more my question: did the eclipse director worked in the past for IBM?

>>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>>dedicated issue?
>>>
>>>One was 'accepted', see [5]
[...]

[ note to readers: as you can see, the IBM team has found again a lame
excuse to close this issue, too:
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775#c14 ]

>>>[5]
>>>>>>>[Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
[...]

>>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>>>
>>>>>"We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>>>>That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>>>>within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>>>>really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>>>>don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>>>>dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>>>>the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>>>>risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>>>>between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>>>>the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>>>>within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>>>
>>>>>then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>>>> within this project.

..

--
http://lazaridis.com
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9545 is a reply to message #9450] Thu, 06 January 2005 09:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse Webmaster is currently offline Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 444222
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Philippe,

Please feel free to log bugs in the Bugzilla component of the
"Community" product if you feel there is a bug with the Buzgilla
tracking system that affects the Community.

Denis





Philippe Mulet wrote:
> I closed all offending PRs again. Leaving only one which provides actual
> value (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81974).
>
> "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org> wrote in message
> news:cri431$q2$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>Ilias,
>>
>>Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.
>>
>>Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position". Like I said, I am
>>satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>
>>If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
>>developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
>>terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.
>>
>>/mike
>>
>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>news:crheh8$sda$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
>>>> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
>>>
>>>Resolving.
>>>
>>>"abuse of power and position"
>>>
>>>[I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
>>>>opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
>>>>closed by the developer(s).
>>>
>>>"duplicative" => false (see [1])
>>>"unnecessary" => false (see [2])
>>>
>>>
>>>>They were well within their rights to do so.
>>>
>>>of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>>
>>>I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
>>>>source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
>>>>learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
>>>>rules of engagement as everyone else?
>>>
>>>I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
>>>already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
>>>
>>>see [3]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
>>>>developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
>>>>not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
>>>>its members and supporting the requirements of the project
>>>>developers.
>>>
>>>I understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>>For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
>>>>they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
>>>>in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
>>>>personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
>>>
>>>I don't agitate for separate channels.
>>>
>>>I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
>>>
>>>see [4]
>>>
>>>
>>>>In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
>>>>process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
>>>>plans.
>>>
>>>This information is false.
>>>
>>>Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>>>
>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>>>
>>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>>dedicated issue?
>>>
>>>One was 'accepted', see [5]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
>>>>document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
>>>
>>>by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
>>>
>>>
>>>>by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
>>>>plans.
>>>
>>>I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
>>>
>>>[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>>>
>>>
>>>>That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
>>>
>>>I don't want to win friends.
>>>
>>>I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
>
> file
>
>>>issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
>>>
>>>[9]
>>>
>>>
>>>>In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
>>>
>>>neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
>>>
>>>I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
>>>status:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>>>
>>>I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>>>
>>>
>>>>/mike
>>>>
>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>
> intervent.
>
>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>
>>>>ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>
> intervent.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>>>>>in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>>>>>status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>[6]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
>>>>>>>that was out of synch:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this huge "Issue":
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>>>>>known issues within bugzilla:
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>>>>
>>>>>>The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
>
> support
>
>>>>>>on its web page:
>>>>>>
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>>>>>proof this).
>>>>>
>>>>>The status _is_ not accurate:
>>>>>
>>>>>* The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>>>>>provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[7]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>[I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>>>>>hidden from public.]
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[3]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>
> created
>
>>>>>>>out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>>>>>thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>
>>>[4]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>>>>>the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>>>>>different]:
>>>
>>>[5]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>[Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>>>>>the following JSR's:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>>>>>(after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JSR-014 Generics
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>
> loops,
>
>>>>>>>static imports) https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>>>>>documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>>>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>>>>>the web page.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>>>>>non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>>>>>that relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>>>>>issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>>>>>users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>>>>>they like to boost development.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>>>>>all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects
>
> to
>
>>>>>>help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>>>>>are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>>>>
>>>>>are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>
>>>>>which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>>>>>agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>>>>
>>>>>So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
>>>
>>>[1]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>>>>>difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_
>>>>>>>the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>>>>>removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>[9]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or JSR-176?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>>>>>transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>>>>>possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>>>>>filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>>>>>transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>>>>>Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
>>>>>>>implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>>>>> should reflect the correct status.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>>>>>effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>>>>>JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>>>>>will take a few months to finish.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>>>>>JDT.Core)
>>>>>
>>>>>But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>>>>>issues)
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[2]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>>>>>hit on this information after a search.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>>>>>they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>>>>>for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>Feel free.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>>>>>JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>>>>>the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>>>>
>>>>>....
>>>>>
>>>>>except:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[8]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>>>
>>>>>"We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>>>>That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>>>>within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>>>>really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>>>>don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>>>>dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>>>>the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>>>>risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>>>>between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>>>>the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>>>>within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>>>
>>>>>then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>>>> within this project.
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://lazaridis.com
>>
>>
>
>


--

Eclipse WebMaster - webmaster@eclipse.org
Questions? Consult the FAQ at http://www.eclipse.org/webmaster/faq.html
View my status at http://www.eclipse.org/webmaster/main.html
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9569 is a reply to message #9450] Thu, 06 January 2005 09:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: eclipse-news.forritan.net

Watching this from the sideline - I find this completely ridiculous. He
is an obvious troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
but still gets to distract a great deal of the developers with his
rambling. On the mailinglists and the newsgroups it is reasonably easy
to ignore him, but I don't see how you (the developers) can tolerate
that he continues to corrupt the Bugzilla systems. (It took less 3 hours
before he reopened all issues you just closed - once again)

He started to evaluate Hibernate just before Christmas on the
hiberbnate-devel mailinglist and surprisingly:


From: Gavin King <gavin@hi...>
FYI
2004-12-23 17:10

I have removed Ilias Lazaridis from the list.

--
Gavin King



and he is also currently 'evaluating' at the IntelliJ Community forum...
where the first comment to his arrival was:

Oh my god.


So please do something somebody! Its long overdue.

Regards
Eyðun Nielsen

P.s.: I know that I shouldn't have fed the 'evaluator' myself on january
first, but I couldn't resist it. :-)

P.p.s.: To all the developers: Thank you for a great IDE and platform :-)


Philippe Mulet wrote:
> I closed all offending PRs again. Leaving only one which provides actual
> value (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81974).
>
> "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org> wrote in message
> news:cri431$q2$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>Ilias,
>>
>>Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.
>>
>>Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position". Like I said, I am
>>satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>
>>If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
>>developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
>>terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.
>>
>>/mike
>>
>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>news:crheh8$sda$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>
>>>>I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
>>>> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
>>>
>>>Resolving.
>>>
>>>"abuse of power and position"
>>>
>>>[I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
>>>>opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
>>>>closed by the developer(s).
>>>
>>>"duplicative" => false (see [1])
>>>"unnecessary" => false (see [2])
>>>
>>>
>>>>They were well within their rights to do so.
>>>
>>>of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
>>>
>>>
>>>>I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>>
>>>I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
>>>>source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
>>>>learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
>>>>rules of engagement as everyone else?
>>>
>>>I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
>>>already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
>>>
>>>see [3]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
>>>>developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
>>>>not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
>>>>its members and supporting the requirements of the project
>>>>developers.
>>>
>>>I understand.
>>>
>>>
>>>>For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
>>>>they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
>>>>in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
>>>>personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
>>>
>>>I don't agitate for separate channels.
>>>
>>>I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
>>>
>>>see [4]
>>>
>>>
>>>>In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
>>>>process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
>>>>plans.
>>>
>>>This information is false.
>>>
>>>Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>>>
>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>>>
>>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>>dedicated issue?
>>>
>>>One was 'accepted', see [5]
>>>
>>>
>>>>Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
>>>>document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
>>>
>>>by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
>>>
>>>
>>>>by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
>>>>plans.
>>>
>>>I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
>>>
>>>[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>>>
>>>
>>>>That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
>>>
>>>I don't want to win friends.
>>>
>>>I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
>
> file
>
>>>issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
>>>
>>>[9]
>>>
>>>
>>>>In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
>>>
>>>neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
>>>
>>>I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
>>>status:
>>>
>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>>>
>>>I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>>>
>>>
>>>>/mike
>>>>
>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>
> intervent.
>
>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>
>>>>ilias wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>
> intervent.
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>>>>>in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>>>>>status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>[6]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
>>>>>>>that was out of synch:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this huge "Issue":
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>>>>>known issues within bugzilla:
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>>>>
>>>>>>The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
>
> support
>
>>>>>>on its web page:
>>>>>>
>
> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>>>>>proof this).
>>>>>
>>>>>The status _is_ not accurate:
>>>>>
>>>>>* The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>>>>>provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[7]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>[I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>>>>>hidden from public.]
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[3]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>
> created
>
>>>>>>>out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>>>>>thread:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
> http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>
>>>[4]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>>>>>the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>>>>>different]:
>>>
>>>[5]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>[Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>>>>>the following JSR's:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>>>>>(after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>JSR-014 Generics
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>
> loops,
>
>>>>>>>static imports) https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>>>>>documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>>>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>>>>>the web page.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>>>>>non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>>>>>that relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>>>>>issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>>>>>users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>>>>>they like to boost development.
>>>>>
>>>>>Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>>>>>all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects
>
> to
>
>>>>>>help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>>>>>are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>>>>
>>>>>are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>
>>>>>which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>>>>>agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>>>>
>>>>>So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
>>>
>>>[1]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>>>>>difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_
>>>>>>>the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>>>>>removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>[9]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or JSR-176?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>>>>>transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>>>>>possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>>>>>filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>>>>>transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>>>>>Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
>>>>>>>implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>>>>> should reflect the correct status.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>>>>>effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>>>>>JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>>>>>will take a few months to finish.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>>>>>JDT.Core)
>>>>>
>>>>>But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>>>>>issues)
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[2]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>>>>>hit on this information after a search.
>>>>>
>>>>>>I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>>>>>they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>>>>>for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>>>>
>>>>>So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>Feel free.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>>>>
>>>>>The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>>>>>JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>>>>>the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>>>>
>>>>>....
>>>>>
>>>>>except:
>>>>>
>>>
>>>[8]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>>>
>>>>>"We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>>>>That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>>>>within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>>>>really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>>>>don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>>>>dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>>>>the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>>>>risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>>>>between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>>>>the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>>>>within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>>>
>>>>>then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>>>> within this project.
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>>--
>>>http://lazaridis.com
>>
>>
>
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9594 is a reply to message #9569] Thu, 06 January 2005 09:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Milinkovich is currently offline Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I have asked the WebMaster to do what he can to make Ilias disappear from
Bugzilla, the newsgroups and our mailing lists.

Thanks all.

/mike

"Ey
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9618 is a reply to message #9569] Thu, 06 January 2005 11:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: myname(with.between names).lombardisoftware.com

I know he is a troll, but sometimes it is tempting to try to be the one
person to get one of these people to see the light and become productive
members of the society. :)

Eyðun Nielsen wrote:

> Watching this from the sideline - I find this completely ridiculous. He
> is an obvious troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
> but still gets to distract a great deal of the developers with his
> rambling. On the mailinglists and the newsgroups it is reasonably easy
> to ignore him, but I don't see how you (the developers) can tolerate
> that he continues to corrupt the Bugzilla systems. (It took less 3 hours
> before he reopened all issues you just closed - once again)
>
> He started to evaluate Hibernate just before Christmas on the
> hiberbnate-devel mailinglist and surprisingly:
>
>
> From: Gavin King <gavin@hi...>
> FYI
> 2004-12-23 17:10
>
> I have removed Ilias Lazaridis from the list.
>
> --
> Gavin King
>
>
>
> and he is also currently 'evaluating' at the IntelliJ Community forum...
> where the first comment to his arrival was:
>
> Oh my god.
>
>
> So please do something somebody! Its long overdue.
>
> Regards
> Eyðun Nielsen
>
> P.s.: I know that I shouldn't have fed the 'evaluator' myself on january
> first, but I couldn't resist it. :-)
>
> P.p.s.: To all the developers: Thank you for a great IDE and platform :-)
>
>
> Philippe Mulet wrote:
>> I closed all offending PRs again. Leaving only one which provides actual
>> value (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81974).
>>
>> "Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org> wrote in message
>> news:cri431$q2$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>
>>>Ilias,
>>>
>>>Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.
>>>
>>>Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position". Like I said, I
>>>am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>>
>>>If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
>>>developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
>>>terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.
>>>
>>>/mike
>>>
>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>news:crheh8$sda$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>>Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
>>>>> relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
>>>>
>>>>Resolving.
>>>>
>>>>"abuse of power and position"
>>>>
>>>>[I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
>>>>>opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
>>>>>closed by the developer(s).
>>>>
>>>>"duplicative" => false (see [1])
>>>>"unnecessary" => false (see [2])
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>They were well within their rights to do so.
>>>>
>>>>of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>>>
>>>>I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
>>>>>source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
>>>>>learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
>>>>>rules of engagement as everyone else?
>>>>
>>>>I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
>>>>already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
>>>>
>>>>see [3]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
>>>>>developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
>>>>>not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
>>>>>its members and supporting the requirements of the project
>>>>>developers.
>>>>
>>>>I understand.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
>>>>>they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
>>>>>in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
>>>>>personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
>>>>
>>>>I don't agitate for separate channels.
>>>>
>>>>I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
>>>>
>>>>see [4]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
>>>>>process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
>>>>>plans.
>>>>
>>>>This information is false.
>>>>
>>>>Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>>>>
>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>>>>
>>>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>>>dedicated issue?
>>>>
>>>>One was 'accepted', see [5]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
>>>>>document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
>>>>
>>>>by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
>>>>>plans.
>>>>
>>>>I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
>>>>
>>>>[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
>>>>
>>>>I don't want to win friends.
>>>>
>>>>I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
>>
>> file
>>
>>>>issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
>>>>
>>>>[9]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
>>>>
>>>>neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
>>>>
>>>>I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
>>>>status:
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>>>>
>>>>I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>/mike
>>>>>
>>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>
>> intervent.
>>
>>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>
>>>>-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ilias wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>
>> intervent.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>>>>>>in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>>>>>>status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[6]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
>>>>>>>>that was out of synch:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this huge "Issue":
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>>>>>>known issues within bugzilla:
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
>>
>> support
>>
>>>>>>>on its web page:
>>>>>>>
>>
>>
http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>>>>>>proof this).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The status _is_ not accurate:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>* The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>>>>>>provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[7]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>[I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>>>>>>hidden from public.]
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[3]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>>
>> created
>>
>>>>>>>>out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>>>>>>thread:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>>
>>>>[4]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>>>>>>the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>>>>>>different]:
>>>>
>>>>[5]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>[Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>>>>>>the following JSR's:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>>>>>>(after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>JSR-014 Generics
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>>
>> loops,
>>
>>>>>>>>static imports) https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>>>>>>documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>>>>>> really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>>>>>>the web page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>>>>>>non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>>>>>>that relevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>>>>>>issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>>>>>>users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>>>>>>they like to boost development.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>>>>>>all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects
>>
>> to
>>
>>>>>>>help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>>>>>>are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>>
>>>>>>which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>>>>>>agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
>>>>
>>>>[1]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>>>>>>difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_
>>>>>>>>the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>>>>>>removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[9]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Or JSR-176?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>>>>>>transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>>>>>>possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>>>>>>filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>>>>>>transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>>>>>>Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
>>>>>>>>implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>>>>>> should reflect the correct status.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>>>>>>effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>>>>>>JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>>>>>>will take a few months to finish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>>>>>>JDT.Core)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>>>>>>issues)
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[2]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>>>>>>hit on this information after a search.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>>>>>>they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>>>>>>for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Feel free.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>>>>>>JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>>>>>>the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>except:
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[8]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>>>>>That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>>>>>within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>>>>>really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>>>>>don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>>>>>dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>>>>>the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>>>>>risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>>>>>between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>>>>>the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>>>>>within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>>>>> within this project.
>>>>
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>http://lazaridis.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9642 is a reply to message #9495] Thu, 06 January 2005 12:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: myname(with.between names).lombardisoftware.com

Well then why don't you enlighten the rest of us on which specific sections
and paragraphs in the Bylaws (http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse
BYLAWS 2003_11_10 Final.pdf) and Dev process
(http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse Development Process
2003_11_09 FINAL.pdf) are violated by Kent Johnson and his way of doing
things. Stating it "violates" without any direct pointers to what exactly
it violates means nothing.

Maybe you can add in a link to the "transparency directive" (and the
paragraph[s] in question) that states the JDT teams way of handling
Bugzilla is illegal?




ilias wrote:

> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>> Ilias,
>>
>> Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.
>
> I've read it, but he's obivously very missinformed about the eclipse
> foundations development process.
>
> I'm wondering that you rate it as "excellent".
>
> Didn't you detect that his writing were generally, and would violate
> eclipse foundations tranparency directive?
>
> or did you read just the final summary:
>
> " * Bugzilla is mainly for developers and testers. They can organize
> it the way they want, not the way you or I might want.
> * Status updates is done when the people involved developing wants
> to in the granularity they want to, not when/what you or I want.
> * How/If to keep status is up to the developers, not me or you.
> "
>
> which is again not valid for the eclipse foundation.
>
>> Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position".
>
> Declaring valid Issues (which affect JSR's) as invalid, whilst closing
> them is not their job.
>
> Disrupting a valid user contributed dependency tree, which reflects
> reality, without any justifications is not their job:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>
>> Like I said, I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>
> To keep bugzilla saying that J2SE 5.0 is implemented within JDT.Core?
>
> The right thing for whom?
>
> For the users, which search for information within bugzilla?
>
> Or for the IBM marketin machine?
>
>> If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
>> developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
>> terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.
>
> You are "satisfied" with the abusive behaviour of the JDT.Core team.
>
> Thus I believe that you will not resist to abuse your power and position
> to terminate my access.
>
> I've just reopened the dedicated issues, thus a user which searches
> within bugzilla sees the real status of the JSR's:
>
> JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
> Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced loops,
> static imports)
> Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
> Implement JSR-014 Generics
>
> The dependency shows now the correct status:
>
> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>
> [note to readers: I've not recreated the dependencies, which IBM
> employees have removed, to showcase the reduced transparency]
>
> -
>
> btw: can you please answer the open questions below.
>
> -
>
>>>Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>>>
>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>>>
>>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>>dedicated issue?
>
> ?
>
>>>[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>
> ?
>
>>>I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>
>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>
> .
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - access denied ? [message #9665 is a reply to message #9594] Thu, 06 January 2005 22:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Steve Blass is currently offline Steve Blass
Messages: 121
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
Mike Milinkovich wrote:

> I have asked the WebMaster to do what he can to make Ilias disappear from
> Bugzilla, the newsgroups and our mailing lists.
>
> Thanks all.
>
> /mike
>

<... sigh ... >

Channel banning the gentleman who requested that the channel be opened
seems rather harsh. Community is as Community does. The Citadel
community has an interesting solution to this problem. Bugzilla could
probably implement and benefit from a similar user privilege level
control approach ;)

-
Steve


http://easyinstall.citadel.org/citadel/docs/citadel.html
" ...
Another tradition in the Citadel culture is to refrain from deleting
problem users, but instead to 'twit' them (reduce their access level to
2 [Problem User]). You can then 'Automatically move problem user
messages to twit room' (answer Yes, then specify 'Name of twit room' and
remember to create that room). If you employ this logic, any user with
level 2 (Problem User) access will continue to have access to the same
set of rooms, but all messages posted will automatically be routed to
the Trashcan (or whatever you call your twit room).
...."
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9692 is a reply to message #9594] Fri, 07 January 2005 04:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: joerg.von.frantzius.artnology.nospam.com

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080507000401060303020202
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

I'd also find it a bit over the top to throw him out from the newsgroups
and mailing lists. Who wants to ignore him can simply put him into his
personal "killfile" (automatic filters) or just refrain from reading his
postings. I also found that besides being slightly entertaining, there
sometimes was a grain of uncomfortable truth in what he wrote that
should not be completely unheard. I had so far been really impressed by
the integrative powers and endurance of the eclipse community, and I'd
find it a bit disappointing if it reverts to simple repressive measures.

Generating unnecessary work for other people in the Bugzilla is
something different though. Maybe it is possible to just block him in
the Bugzilla?

Mike Milinkovich schrieb:

>I have asked the WebMaster to do what he can to make Ilias disappear from
>Bugzilla, the newsgroups and our mailing lists.
>
>Thanks all.
>
>/mike
>
>"Ey
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - access denied ? [message #9708 is a reply to message #9665] Fri, 07 January 2005 10:57 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bjorn Freeman-Benson is currently offline Bjorn Freeman-Benson
Messages: 75
Registered: July 2009
Member
I'd like to point out, that in spite of Ilias believing that he was the sole
reason for the creation of the eclipse.foundation newsgroup, he was not.
There were a number of others who had been working behind the scenes to make
the group happen for a while before Ilias showed up. It's too bad that the
troll got the credit, but c'est la vie.

I think that banning people who have so very obviously chosen not to join
the community social fabric is a good idea. I think we, the Eclipse
community, have been one of the most tolerant communities he has been
annoying - in fact, I think we should have done something earlier.

- Bjorn

> Channel banning the gentleman who requested that the channel be opened
seems rather harsh.
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9715 is a reply to message #9594] Fri, 07 January 2005 12:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brian Hudson is currently offline Brian Hudson
Messages: 17
Registered: July 2009
Junior Member
Thank you!

This was long overdue.


Brian Hudson

Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> I have asked the WebMaster to do what he can to make Ilias disappear from
> Bugzilla, the newsgroups and our mailing lists.
>
> Thanks all.
>
> /mike
>
> "Eyðun Nielsen" <eclipse-news@forritan.net> wrote in message
> news:crjgo9$d5q$1@www.eclipse.org...
>
>>Watching this from the sideline - I find this completely ridiculous. He is
>>an obvious troll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
>>but still gets to distract a great deal of the developers with his
>>rambling. On the mailinglists and the newsgroups it is reasonably easy to
>>ignore him, but I don't see how you (the developers) can tolerate that he
>>continues to corrupt the Bugzilla systems. (It took less 3 hours before he
>>reopened all issues you just closed - once again)
>>
>>He started to evaluate Hibernate just before Christmas on the
>>hiberbnate-devel mailinglist and surprisingly:
>>
>>
>>From: Gavin King <gavin@hi...>
>>FYI
>>2004-12-23 17:10
>>
>> I have removed Ilias Lazaridis from the list.
>>
>> --
>> Gavin King
>>
>>
>>
>>and he is also currently 'evaluating' at the IntelliJ Community forum...
>>where the first comment to his arrival was:
>>
>> Oh my god.
>>
>>
>>So please do something somebody! Its long overdue.
>>
>>Regards
>>Eyðun Nielsen
>>
>>P.s.: I know that I shouldn't have fed the 'evaluator' myself on january
>>first, but I couldn't resist it. :-)
>>
>>P.p.s.: To all the developers: Thank you for a great IDE and platform :-)
>>
>>
>>Philippe Mulet wrote:
>>
>>>I closed all offending PRs again. Leaving only one which provides actual
>>>value (https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81974).
>>>
>>>"Mike Milinkovich" <mike.milinkovich@eclipse.org> wrote in message
>>>news:cri431$q2$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ilias,
>>>>
>>>>Please read Morten's excellent summary of how bug reporting gets done.
>>>>
>>>>Doing their job is not an "abuse of power and position". Like I said, I
>>>>am
>>>>satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>>>
>>>>If you persist in re-opening bug reports which have been closed by the
>>>>developers, I will unfortunately have no recourse but to look into
>>>>terminating your access to our Bugzilla systems.
>>>>
>>>>/mike
>>>>
>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:crheh8$sda$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not sure who you expect to intervene or what you expect "...the
>>>>>>relevant organs within the eclipse foundation..." to do.
>>>>>
>>>>>Resolving.
>>>>>
>>>>>"abuse of power and position"
>>>>>
>>>>>[I do not accept this silently, like other users.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Everything you have complained about is perfectly transparent. You
>>>>>>opened several duplicative and unnecessary bug reports which we
>>>>>>closed by the developer(s).
>>>>>
>>>>>"duplicative" => false (see [1])
>>>>>"unnecessary" => false (see [2])
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>They were well within their rights to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>of course not. [see my requoted rationales below]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am satisfied that Kent did the right thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>I am unsatisfied which your way to ignore the given rationales.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Here's a suggestion. Rather than trying to convert the Eclipse open
>>>>>>source project to work the way to wished it did, why don't you try
>>>>>>learning how it actually does work and participating using the same
>>>>>>rules of engagement as everyone else?
>>>>>
>>>>>I know how this weak and non-integrated planning system works, and I've
>>>>>already suggested some changes (which you are free to ignore once more):
>>>>>
>>>>>see [3]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Eclipse is an open source project. It is run by developers for
>>>>>>developers. The Eclipse Foundation is a member-supported
>>>>>>not-for-profit organization which is focused on meeting the needs of
>>>>>>its members and supporting the requirements of the project
>>>>>>developers.
>>>>>
>>>>>I understand.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>For users to be effective in promoting their interests,
>>>>>>they need to communicate using the channels and processes which are
>>>>>>in place. Agitating for separate channels that better suit your
>>>>>>personal desires for information is just a waste of everyone's time.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't agitate for separate channels.
>>>>>
>>>>>I _insist_ to file dedicated issues for JSR's.
>>>>>
>>>>>see [4]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In this case you have seriously misunderstood how the development
>>>>>>process works. Bug reports are not plans. They are inputs to making
>>>>>>plans.
>>>>>
>>>>>This information is false.
>>>>>
>>>>>Plan items were kept within bugzilla - one example:
>>>>>
>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=37660
>>>>>
>>>>>Can anyone within this project explain me, why an _JSR_ is not worth an
>>>>>dedicated issue?
>>>>>
>>>>>One was 'accepted', see [5]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Philippe did you the courtesy of providing you a link to the planning
>>>>>>document --- which is available to all --- and you return the favour
>>>>>
>>>>>by pointing out deficiencies within the plan, see [6]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>by implying that he is hiding information and maintaining hidden
>>>>>>plans.
>>>>>
>>>>>I've implied that _IBM_ is doing this, see [7] and [8]
>>>>>
>>>>>[Btw: did you ever worked for IBM?]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>That is *not* how you win friends with anyone.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't want to win friends.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just want that this ungentle IBM team stops hindering my efforts to
>>>
>>>file
>>>
>>>
>>>>>issues for the JSR's, similar to other filed plan items.
>>>>>
>>>>>[9]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>In any case, this matter is closed --- as are the bug reports.
>>>>>
>>>>>neither this matter, nor the bug reports were closed.
>>>>>
>>>>>I just reopened them, having now again the real dependency tree and
>>>>>status:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/showdependencytree.cgi?id=8077 5
>>>>>
>>>>>I ask you friendly to not further ignore my rationales.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>/mike
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:crbl08$gjo$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>>
>>>intervent.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>>
>>>>>-
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ilias wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Philippe Mulet wrote: [moved down into context]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"ilias" <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:cr5sji$i45$1@www.eclipse.org...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I ask the relevant organs within the eclipse foundation to
>>>
>>>intervent.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Awaiting a reaction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please ensure the transparency of the development process.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) manipulates filed issues within JDT.Core
>>>>>>>>>in a way which results in a false reflection of the current
>>>>>>>>>status of the issues and their dependencies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[6]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Reviewing the J2SE 5.0 implementation status, i've found information
>>>>>>>>>that was out of synch:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>this huge "Issue":
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>an outdated and inprecise plan, mostly without links to filed
>>>>>>>>>known issues within bugzilla:
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81471#c3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=50443#c13
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The JDT/Core team is maintaining an accurate status of J2SE 5.0
>>>
>>>support
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>on its web page:
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> http://dev.eclipse.org/viewcvs/index.cgi/%7Echeckout%7E/jdt- core-home/r3.1/main.html#release-plan
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>The status _was_ not accurate (see provided links above, which
>>>>>>>proof this).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The status _is_ not accurate:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>* The open and the known issues are not filed. * links were not
>>>>>>>provided within the plan. * Interdependencies were not shown.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[7]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>[I am wondering if the team uses an internal system, which is
>>>>>>>hidden from public.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[3]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This "out-of-synch" problem would be reduced, if the plan was
>>>
>>>created
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>out of the bugzilla database, as suggested in this
>>>>>>>>>thread:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Dependency Feature
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>> http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=217&gro up=eclipse.foundation
>>>
>>>
>>>>>[4]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've entered within Buzilla (the eclipse Issue Tracking System)
>>>>>>>>>the following Issue [using current title, initial title was
>>>>>>>>>different]:
>>>>>
>>>>>[5]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>[Bug 80775] JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80775
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>this Issue depends on the implementation (within JDT.Core) of
>>>>>>>>>the following JSR's:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>JSR-201 (contains several parts), JSR-175, JSR-014
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Whilst using the dependency-feature of Bugzilla, I've filed
>>>>>>>>>(after looking for duplicates) the further top-level Issues:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>JSR-014 Generics
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80777
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Implement JSR-175 Metadata Facility (Annotations)
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=80776
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201 (enumerations, autoboxing, varargs, enhanced
>>>
>>>loops,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>static imports) https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81470
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Implement JSR-201, part "static imports"
>>>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=81593
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've interlinked existing issues (and the newly filed
>>>>>>>>>documented known issues) with use of the dependency feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We use the bugzilla databse to track specific defects, and do not
>>>>>>>>really need an extra (after the fact) dependency tree to mimick
>>>>>>>>the web page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Your team-driven [users have no influence], out-dated and
>>>>>>>non-referencing status-report within the projects website is not
>>>>>>>that relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Bugzilla must inform the users, which search there for known
>>>>>>>issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The dependecy-tree clarifies the issue-interdependencies, enabling
>>>>>>>users to detect relevant locations where they can contribute if
>>>>>>>they like to boost development.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Please remember that this is an open-source project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>At this stage in our development cycle, we are trying to solve
>>>>>>>>all remaining problems in J2SE 5.0 front, and need specific defects
>>>
>>>to
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>help us; we have a couple non specific defects which
>>>>>>>>are representing committed 3.1 plan items,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>are you refering to this joke of an [plan item] issue:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=36938
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>which I would personally be ashamed to show to the public?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>and do not need extra ones to simply reformulate them (yes I
>>>>>>>>agree in a clearer way, but still duplicates).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, you really want to continue this arrogant behaviour?
>>>>>
>>>>>[1]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I could expect from an experienced team that it understands the
>>>>>>>difference between "duplicate" and "depending on" relation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You will see within the issues, that Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) _closes_
>>>>>>>>>the issues as INVALID - and as the last action,
>>>>>>>>>removing dependencies without any justifying comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[9]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What happens when a users searches for JSR-175 within Bugzilla?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Or JSR-176?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>He finds obfuscated data.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>It looks to me that the team is not intrested in real
>>>>>>>>>transparency, but just in keeping the open issues as low as
>>>>>>>>>possible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Until the JSR's were fully implemented within JDT.Core, the
>>>>>>>>>filed Issues remain _open_.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is a _fact_ - and I ask you to keep the Issue tracking
>>>>>>>>>transparent and honest, whilst reflecting the _real_ status.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I've not the time to continue those close/open games from Mr.
>>>>>>>>>Kent Johnson (IBM).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"JSR-176 J2SE 5.0 (Tiger) Release Contents" are far away from beeing
>>>>>>>>>implemented fully within eclipse JDT.Core - and Bugzilla
>>>>>>>>>should reflect the correct status.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Basically, your effort should have occurred when the J2SE 5.0
>>>>>>>>effort started, and you should have better communicated with the
>>>>>>>>JDT Core team so as not to be disrupting our effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think it's a good moment to file the open J2SE 5.0 Issues, which
>>>>>>>will take a few months to finish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not disrupting your effort (to implement J2SE 5.0 within
>>>>>>>JDT.Core)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But you do disrupt mine (to organize and interlink the known
>>>>>>>issues)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[2]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Any JSR is worth a dedicated Issue within Buzilla, thus users
>>>>>>>>>hit on this information after a search.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I appreciate your no longer reopening unnecessary defects, since
>>>>>>>>they are inducing false hits in mail notifications; and thanks
>>>>>>>>for your interest in our J2SE 5.0 effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, you think honestly that an JSR is not worth an dedicated Issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Feel free.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As I will feel free to reopen the _perfectly_ valid Issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The arrogant behaviour [ignoring facts and rationales] of the
>>>>>>>JDT.Core team (IBM) will not hinder me to increase transparency of
>>>>>>>the development, whilst using the resources of this project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>except:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>[8]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>You could state what should become obvious to every reader:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"We (IBM) do not want too much transparency within the JDT.Core.
>>>>>>>That's the reason why everything is kept so terribly unorganized
>>>>>>>within _one_ component "Core", including the whole compiler [yes,
>>>>>>>really! the compiler is not an seperated organisational unit]. So,
>>>>>>>don't expect that we will allow you to create a transparent
>>>>>>>dependency-tree, thus everyone is able to understand within minutes
>>>>>>>the status and the interconnections. We will fight this, whilst
>>>>>>>risking to look like dumbs who do not understand the difference
>>>>>>>between a duplicate and a depending-on relation. We will even take
>>>>>>>the risk to state that an JSR is not worth an dedicated issue
>>>>>>>within bugzilla - and has to be marked as invalid."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>then I would possibly stop to insist on a transparent issue filing
>>>>>>>within this project.
>>>>>
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>http://lazaridis.com
>>>>
>>>>
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - access denied ? [message #9727 is a reply to message #9665] Fri, 07 January 2005 12:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mike Milinkovich is currently offline Mike Milinkovich
Messages: 258
Registered: July 2009
Senior Member
I don't disagree that it is heavy handed. And it wasn't something I did
without a lot of soul searching.

I personally have infinite patience and would have happily kept debating
with Ilias. Unfortunately, when he started wasting a lot of developer time
and flagrantly ignored requests to modify his behaviour, I felt I had to do
something.

Wasting my time is fine. Wasting developers' time is not.

We will look into whether we can modify the Bugzilla implementation as
you've pointed out below. If that is something we can do in a reasonable
timeframe it may be alternative solution.

Not that it really matters, but we are not the first community forced into
this step.

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=62195 54&forum_id=7517
http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html


"Steve Blass" <swb@aurora.phys.utk.edu> wrote in message
news:crkulv$cc9$1@www.eclipse.org...
> Mike Milinkovich wrote:
>
>> I have asked the WebMaster to do what he can to make Ilias disappear from
>> Bugzilla, the newsgroups and our mailing lists.
>>
>> Thanks all.
>>
>> /mike
>>
>
> <... sigh ... >
>
> Channel banning the gentleman who requested that the channel be opened
> seems rather harsh. Community is as Community does. The Citadel
> community has an interesting solution to this problem. Bugzilla could
> probably implement and benefit from a similar user privilege level control
> approach ;)
>
> -
> Steve
>
>
> http://easyinstall.citadel.org/citadel/docs/citadel.html
> " ...
> Another tradition in the Citadel culture is to refrain from deleting
> problem users, but instead to 'twit' them (reduce their access level to 2
> [Problem User]). You can then 'Automatically move problem user messages to
> twit room' (answer Yes, then specify 'Name of twit room' and remember to
> create that room). If you employ this logic, any user with level 2
> (Problem User) access will continue to have access to the same set of
> rooms, but all messages posted will automatically be routed to the
> Trashcan (or whatever you call your twit room).
> ..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9733 is a reply to message #9642] Fri, 07 January 2005 13:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: myname(with.between names).lombardisoftware.com

You stated that Kent way of working is "violating" Eclipe rules, yet you do
not point out which specific rules these are. You also claim that "my way"
of doing things would be in violation of the Eclipse bylaws and the
"transparency directive", which you also do not back up with any direct
reference. The burden of proof of your arguments lies on you, not the rest
of us to disprove them.

All I said was common sense development paradigms I, in my experience as a
developer, would follow and I know that other (open source and commercial)
follows. I say there is nothing that tells anyone to work Bugzilla in a
certain way, and its therefore up to the developer(s)/PMs to handle it. I
can't prove a negative, as in there is no such documents. But you can
certainly prove it wrong on all counts (if such rules actually exists).
Claiming you will be censored is just some cheap stalling tactics. Noone
has censored this thread, and this "proof" can't be worse than this thread.


- Morten Moeller
Lombardi Software


ilias wrote:

> Morten Moeller wrote:
>> Well then why don't you enlighten the rest of us on which specific
>> sections and paragraphs in the Bylaws
>> (http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse BYLAWS 2003_11_10
>> Final.pdf) and Dev process (http://www.eclipse.org/org/documents/Eclipse
>> Development Process 2003_11_09 FINAL.pdf) are violated by Kent Johnson
>> and his way of doing things. Stating it "violates" without any direct
>> pointers to what exactly it violates means nothing.
>>
>> Maybe you can add in a link to the "transparency directive" (and the
>> paragraph[s] in question) that states the JDT teams way of handling
>> Bugzilla is illegal?
>
> [you descriptions violate the dev process of the foundation.]
>
> I'll possibly do this, when i'm sure that i will not be censored again.
>
> And for fairplay reasons, all previous questions of mine should be
> answered.
>
> Again for fairplay reasons, _you_ should point to the documents content
> to backup _your_ sayings about the bugzilla process.
>
> .
>
Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfuscates Status and Relations of Issues [message #9759 is a reply to message #9594] Fri, 07 January 2005 17:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: jaredburns.no.spam.acm.org

Thank you.

- Jared

Mike Milinkovich wrote:
> I have asked the WebMaster to do what he can to make Ilias disappear from
> Bugzilla, the newsgroups and our mailing lists.
>
> Thanks all.
>
> /mike
Ilias Lazaridis: the Internet phenomenon [message #9781 is a reply to message #9733] Fri, 07 January 2005 21:51 Go to previous message
Eclipse User
Originally posted by: dpart00323.hotmail.com

I can't blieve some people take Ilias seriously and answer to his threads
after all this.
I've been following his messages since he appeared in eclipse newsgroups
and he indeed stand off as very energetic individual. Making advices about
this and that, going into organisational details, writing plans and
budgets.

After a while people started to become offended and someone wrote about
this guy offending other forums, like NetBeans.
This is very interesting thread about him:
news://news.eclipse.org:119/cn060n$sep$1@eclipse.org ,
news://news.eclipse.org:119/co897a$rse$1@www.eclipse.org
( http://www.eclipse.org/newsportal/article.php?id=145&gro up=eclipse.foundation)
As it turns out, Ilias was messing up various technology forums since 1998.

The energy and quantity of postings produced makes you think that maybe
it's not a single person, but group using same alias. If it's one man show
- does he have time to work? Perhaps many years of forums harrasement made
him very productive in his own trade.
And there's no other like him (http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/mad-people.html),
he tops the list. It's an internet phenomenon. nobody messed up in so many
forums.
Previous Topic:[GOVERNANCE][PROJECT][BUGZILLA][NEWSGROUP] - enabling parallel worlds for Open Source Users with imm
Next Topic:[PROJECT] [BUGZILLA] - Critical Issues Need Independent Supervision
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Thu Aug 21 12:16:23 EDT 2014

Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.11790 seconds