by IAHM-COL » Sat Apr 18, 2015 10:59 pm
So here we go back in circles.
PHEW!... what a community!
I already threw my pray to good that no bus is coming to me anytime soon!
Now to set record straight
1) FGMEMBERs is not a fork of flightgear. it is more like another aircraft repository, that in some way is rather similar to the long-time-accepted additional hangars, that had existed in FG since before I ever joined this community. Yes, accepted, this "hangar" has all of the aircraft also in FGAddon, + a "hell-lot-of" more versions of these, plus basically any other GPL aircraft for FG I know of, regardless of quality, or functional status. We are a development platform after all. Only thing required is interested developers.
2) Therefore, all flightgear plattform with its maintainance groups and whatever people can be bus-struck there, affect FGMEMBERS the same level. If FG collapses, so does FGMEMBERS. We can't have aircrafts without simulator. So, I thank all the core, for their hardwork and cheerleader them to keep doing beautiful stuff, and avoid being hit by buses along the way.
3) FGDATA next with submodules is nothing more that a "branch" of FGDATA next. And we keep updated with every single commit and changes over the development version FGDATA next 3.5;
This implies again, a) that FGDATA next stability and progress is required for FGDATA next with submodules stability and progress. As a matter of fact, I need your stability for my stability. If FGDATA next fails to work, FGDATA next with submodules will follow. Because It is basically the same thing, and the same code. Your bus factor, whatever that is, it is the same as mine. I just merge your commits day after day (well my cronjob does that!)[/b]
but also Much more importantly, FGDATA next with submodules can be very, very easily accepted by the core devs and community and if so, the steps to bring all the aircrafts back to FGDATA next (the upstream) are very simple. Any one knows what a pull request is? As soon as FGDATA with submodules branch were to be merged with the upstream branch, suddenly, all of the community could have this feature.
The blocking attitude of the core community really comes to a shock to me. And, in my opinion it has nothing to do with a "community unanimous decision". Many people threw in the devel list words of support to my proposal. Just the center 3-5 most powerful members of those core said: NO. PERIOD. And spoke of a meritocracy that justified the behavior.
But. Still, the merging of the submodules is technically simple, and technically favorable, and can be done any time, now or in the future. And bring some peace to the community in one stroke.
4) FGAddon has 3 managers, at least publicized: Torsten Dreyer, James Turner, and Curtis Olson. And then I once listed the 18 commiters since inception. And now 1 more: Ed. Avernge. One of these commiters, Helijah, was stripped of its authoring capability, without shame. The developer and maintainer of 268 out of 480 aircraft. And now, he is one of the FGMEMBERS. I can't say he is 100% on board, but he knows of the past that ashamed the FGAddon management, and at least know that thing has not happen on our side.
FGMEMBERS has 1 manager: IH-COL. And he has invited the FGADddon Managers to join the club. Because I am being open about this stuff. It s not about political power or ownership or anything like that. Its about Fostering new and old contributors to share development of the FG aircraft, while making the ride enjoyable, and easy. Facilitate if it may. And make even new developers integration easy, without this meaning a continuous endangering of the infrastructure, and of all the planes!.
Like comparing giving a person the ability to make his own 1 aircraft fork, that he can use, learn, mess, and when all clear, merge to the FGMEMBERs fork, vs, giving that same beginner the ability to write to one subversion repo with all the repositories, and all of the aircrafts simultaneously.
An alternative that not even Clement understood very well, when he spoke to me somewhere about how easy was deleting one aircraft, as oppose to deinitialize a submodule. To which I warn him that if he deleted an aircraft it would be gone for good, to everyone, vs a person deinitializing a submodule does just remove it from their local (in their computer) copy, without affecting no-one-else
5) In this order of ideas, the bus factor of FGMEMBERs is abit worse. I agree. 1 manager. 16 developers. FGAddon is 3 managers, 19 developers. But if we go to the point that FGMEMBERs is a very new solution, idea, proposal and invitation to FG community, I would argue that we have had a very nice accepting, and we kind of match FGaddon numbers, even thou A lot of negative propaganda has been spread over my proposal, even suggesting that discussing it is not of FG community interest and should happen elsewhere. At which, I profoundly disagree. It 's just a FG aircraft collection, after all.
6) The attitude that FGaddon HAS TO BE the accepted solution because a) it already happen, b) it s a "unanimous" community decision that 1 single person opposes to, and wedges differences [FALSE statement by the way], and c) Very importantly It will not be revaluated because very important people backing it up cannot be and are not willing to be wrong this 1 single time, sorry, it does not cut it for me
The additional -previously unmentioned before Thorsten brought it up somewhere in the forum- explanation that the rejection of FGMEMBERS and FGDATA with submodules come because no one in the core circle wanted to trust critical infrastructure to me is also weak. First of all, I offered the infrastructure. and secondly, the same idea can be implemented or even forked if you ever would have wanted to. The most important of all, because in several instances, for a reason really unknown to me, the same cores had stopped my offers of help: Like properly splitting FGDATA to FGDATA next, establishing a submodular approach for aircraft, or even start discussions about how to better manage Scenery distribution, that could be compatible with both terrasync, an url management (restoring the world map) and submodularly downloadable for a complete world obtaining.
This last proposal has also gone in the unheard offers of help by me. Just because ... here I really can't help not having an answer
***
What I really look forward is for a time that we can come down to communicate the option to bend the previous decision of rejecting the FGDATA next with submodules, and implement FGMEMBERS officially. That will be amazing, and so far, the only reasons against really had been the greed of the core developers for "Holding the right answer"
What I am really not looking forward is for being personally targetted. Getting an irreversible ban to the devel list because, really, bottom line, many people was already displaying support for my proposal, and that was growing out of proportion to sell the idea of a "community decision". Being unable to communicate to Curt a petition (official and unofficial) to restore my devel-list status --the same as everyone else, whatever that means.
What I am not really looking forward to is the spread of false propaganda and fears of how FGMEMBERS break the community or affect the project. Because nothing is far from the thruth. All it breaks is the possibility or at least the easiness to outcast people's aircraft developments, being seasoned and long time contributors (like Helijah) or potential new members, some of which have already long demostrated their worth, skill and willingness (like the dash author, Herby W, or JWocky)
I hope that sets you straight,
Best,
IH-COL
Last edited by
IAHM-COL on Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:02 am, edited 2 times in total.
If we gave everybody in the World free software today, but we failed to teach them about the four freedoms, five years from now, would they still have it? Probably not, because if they don’t recognise their freedoms, they’ll let their freedoms fall