Board index FlightGear Support 3rd Party Repositories

FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Tue May 17, 2016 5:33 pm

Lydiot wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 5:19 pm:
Hooray wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 4:44 pm:Which is a little surprising given the recent revelations, i.e. in hindisght, with his background as a writer and his education, we could have expected more thoughtful postings actually.


You have far more faith in humanity than I. I'll give you some kudos for that.


Well, thank you - but actually I was reiterating the previous point, i.e. of treading carefully and looking at the motives of why people team up with others under these circumstances.

For the record, and in case you are unaware of it, the last time this community (and in fact, pretty much the same group of long-timers) spent several weeks (or even months) talking to a really talented contributor, it turned out that thas person was a trained psychologist conducting sociological experiments:

MiG-15bis
vitos wrote: I am psychologist with degree in psychology/social psychology.
[...]
My goals was not it that but in some social experiment. If it would went good, then it all could bring results greater than it was in life, and bring real profit and real improvement in real life.


Given Jabberwocky's posting nature and history, and looking at his background, makes you wonder what exactly he is up to, because he is clearly more seasoned in the use of the English language, and language in general, than most of us - including the fgmembers community apparently.

In fact, I have seen PMs where Jabberwocky admitted to other users in private that he was publicly disagreeing, and debating, with Thorsten or me despite knowing exactly that we were right, because he simply enjoyed the debate, i.e. for the sake of having the argument, and fully well knowing that he was wasting our time, feeling that he was "protecting" others while "dealing" with us.

I think you could say that Thorsten and I are rather seasoned debaters around here, but that thought never occurred to us - and it changed the way we perceived him, and the way we dealt with him.

I honestly wonder how many teenagers, or other less experienced community members, would be able to recognize such games and deal with them accordingly.

Personally, I am simply not interested in this kind of manipulative game - and I seriously doubt that Jabberwocky would dare doing that to me in person...
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11329
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby wlbragg » Tue May 17, 2016 6:02 pm

Lydiot wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 5:16 pm:Listen, if you want to actually be honest about that then you can start here, jump to and continue from here, and you'll see that it's mostly one person carrying on that nonsense.

I can agree with this.

Lydiot wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 5:16 pm:So, as I said earlier, in one sense it's far more rational, accurate and productive to consider hostility to be personal rather than as a function of a project. Not all people over there have the intent you see. Some parsing is necessary, but I often don't see it. Instead I see quotes out of context with poor interpretation which just makes things worse.

It's also easy to align with those that take your position regardless of any negative that may come with that alignment. We see this in RL all the time. One ally in the hand is worth two in the bush! :lol:
Only problem is you have to also pay the price of anything that ally causes.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Tue May 17, 2016 6:26 pm

Well, we are seeing the same thing happen over at the other place, where statements made by Curt, Thorsten or myself are obviously getting tons of weight, including not just paraphrasing what we said here, but out-of-context requoting to create hostility among those who are not aware of certain statements, and to make them appear much more hostile than they were originally intended.

It almost seems like whatever is said by a few posters here is considered to be "the community consensus" in some way - and while I can relate to Curt's posting being perceived to have so much weight, I am having a hard time understanding why Thorsten's or my own postings should receive so much attention.

As a matter of fact, you only need to look at the ohloh stats to see that neither of the three of us is among the group of active core developers, and none of us has taken an active development role in fgmembers or terragit matters (or the FlightGear equivalent of those technologies).

I can somewhat relate to why people are, or have been, yelling at someone like Curt who is definitely perceived to be the "leader" around here by many - but in reality, it makes more sense to look at someone's actual nature and recent degree of involvement - i.e. by referring to the commit logs, which are public.

And once you do that (no offense to Curt), you may actually realize that you have been preaching to the choir, as it has happened so often in this debate by now (e.g. referring to Bomber's request to shut down the mailing list, blatantly unaware of Curt's original, and extremely unpopular, proposal to do just that a few years ago).
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11329
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Tue May 17, 2016 7:13 pm

To be honest it's not so much about a call for curt to shut down the mailing list but more that people posting there see the divisive nature of having two places of communication, the confusion and negativity it's causing within this community and simply stop posting there, in favour of the forum here.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Tue May 17, 2016 7:28 pm

Bomber wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 7:13 pm:To be honest it's not so much about a call for curt to shut down the mailing list but more that people posting there see the divisive nature of having two places of communication, the confusion and negativity it's causing within this community and simply stop posting there, in favour of the forum here.


Has it occurred to you that others, i.e. those using the mailing list/s, may be thinking exactly the same thing ? Let's face it, in this day and age, everybody has got an eMail address - in fact, you need one to register a forum (or wiki) account.

The FlightGear project worked extremely well back when it didn't have a forum, I would have to look at the statistics, but it seemed at least as vivid and active as it is now, if not even more.

Compared to the forum, devel list discussions tend to have a much better signal/noise ratio (as can be currently seen by this debate), so it would be hard to convince people to shut down a place that works so well for so many contributors; following the forum is a huge piece of work, one that shouldn't be underestimated.

Just like there are people like you and I who refuse to use the mailing list, there are others who refuse to use the forum for any serious development discussions - and frankly, if I had a question, I'd simply go to the most appropriate place, i.e. one where people hang out that are most likely to answer my questions, which is not the forum usually.

In fact, I asked Gijs to create the FDM forum a while ago, and it seems the main guy using it, and contributing to it, is ... you. Otherwise, FDM stuff is discussed over at the jsbsim list. Equally, there isn't much core stuff taking place here - I'd reckon that Thorsten is the main guy who's interfacing between all these places - okay, I ocassionally post a little follow-up, but otherwise it'd be kinda retarded for me to expect that everybody will come to the place that works best for me, especially looking at the history of the project - i.e. 20+ years of FlightGear development were largely coordinated using decentralized means like a newsgroup and a handful of mailing lists.

There's nothing divisive about it, if anything, it's deluding ourselves to think that we, the two of us, are so important that all existing FlightGear devel list users/subscribers should stop using the devel list, and come to the forum, because it's so much "better", and so that they can listen to what we have to say.

Let's face it, look at your own projects, i.e. stuff you have been working on for years: I don't think I'll be able to talk you into changing your workflows, and you don't even need to answer that, because you are already proving it, as in not showing a willingness to use the mailing list.

But heck, like bugman said, you can even participate in the mailing list without using an eMail client these days, i.e. via a web front-end.
If in doubt, you could even get a fresh eMail address. So there's no good reason not to get involved in the mailing list if that's what the majority of people prefer to use, and where they prefer to hang out. Majority consensus, simple as that.

Had Curt been successful a few years ago, we might be having the opposite discussion now, with people complaining about having to use the forum.

Like I said previously, the OSG community seems to have found a really good compromise by providing a web-based forum-like gateway for participating in the mailing list.

Apart from that, the project needs to cater to those fueling and driving the project obviously, just like it would make sense to accommodate your needs and requests if I wanted to get involved in FDM/aircraft development, because I frankly know nothing about it, and it would be far-fetched for me to ask you to send ... messages in a bottle, just because I feel more comfortable with that workflow :D

Frankly, I am surprised that we keep having to reiterate that point, given that we're all adults, and that we should be able to relate to someone else's perspective.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11329
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby jaxsin » Tue May 17, 2016 7:58 pm

Has it occurred to you that others, i.e. those using the mailing list/s, may be thinking exactly the same thing ?


Think of others??? Is this the turn of the 20th century of the 21st you speak of?

One person demanding the backing of a community?
Good thing Curt and the rest of the dictators don't follow other free open source project RULES
jaxsin
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:54 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby wlbragg » Tue May 17, 2016 8:05 pm

I see nothing wrong with doing business on the mailing list, It has some positives. I personally don't prefer that type of communication for several reasons. But I also don't look at it as an kind of division. Anyone can join just like they can here, so the only division is by ones unwillingness to join and post.

I find it a bit odd that any developers wouldn't read both. By not reading both you only get half the issues and available input. I really don't consider any reasoning for not, it's not difficult to do both and pull out what you might think is pertinent. It doesn't mean you have to click on every post and read it. Or that you have to respond. Same as you pass over any heading of mail your not interested in.

But by refusing to read half of the input that is available in a project, you are denying yourself half the picture.
Kansas(2-27-15)/Ohio/Midwest scenery development.
KEQA (2-27-15), 3AU, KRCP Airport Layout
User avatar
wlbragg
 
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:31 pm
Location: Kansas (Tornado Alley), USA
Callsign: WC2020
Version: next
OS: Win10/Debain/nVGT640

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Lydiot » Tue May 17, 2016 8:26 pm

Hooray wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 6:26 pm:Well, we are seeing the same thing happen over at the other place, where statements made by Curt, Thorsten or myself are obviously getting tons of weight, including not just paraphrasing what we said here, but out-of-context requoting to create hostility among those who are not aware of certain statements, and to make them appear much more hostile than they were originally intended.

It almost seems like whatever is said by a few posters here is considered to be "the community consensus" in some way - and while I can relate to Curt's posting being perceived to have so much weight, I am having a hard time understanding why Thorsten's or my own postings should receive so much attention.


I'm sure that there is, to some degree, an interesting 'mirroring effect', for lack of better nomenclature.
Last edited by bugman on Tue May 17, 2016 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed the quote.
Lydiot
 
Posts: 985
Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Hooray » Tue May 17, 2016 8:58 pm

it's a good term actually - however, it seems it's not 1:1 mirroring taking place, because all attempts at good-will were not mirrored at all, even if you completely ignore JBW himself.
Please don't send support requests by PM, instead post your questions on the forum so that all users can contribute and benefit
Thanks & all the best,
Hooray
Help write next month's newsletter !
pui2canvas | MapStructure | Canvas Development | Programming resources
Hooray
 
Posts: 11329
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:40 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Thorsten » Wed May 18, 2016 4:59 am

So, as I said earlier, in one sense it's far more rational, accurate and productive to consider hostility to be personal rather than as a function of a project. Not all people over there have the intent you see. Some parsing is necessary, but I often don't see it. Instead I see quotes out of context with poor interpretation which just makes things worse.


I've personally not used the term 'hostile fork' (more or less for the reasons you mention) but I believe it is a definition of which you can just check whether it applies or not - so I can see the rationale of what Curt and Edward have argued.

Otherwise I think I've made it clear where I see the problems.

* Nazi comparisons etc.: In my experience it's not only JW who uses that kind of thing (one participant in the present discussions was fond of suggesting that developers wouldn't have any balls... I like the sexual theme just as much as the Nazi theme - not at all). But JW is probably by some margin the worst.

So here's the thing: I am in a team with someone, we together represent team X. Now one of my teammates just does something that's not acceptable in my ethical compass. You'll find that I speak up and state that I disagree with that action and try to get him to stop. If I don't, I silently approve of the action - and being part of the same team, become associated with it.

I would have appreciated reading that FGMembers contributors state now and then that they find, say, the Nazi thing not acceptable. But apart from one or two exceptions, the actual reaction seemed to be to close ranks and be silent or just join in. You can be sure that I will appreciate the position of anyone who says 'I find what JW does completely unacceptable and have told him so, but I still like the development structure better and continue to contribute there.' I just don't seem to see this so much.

* Recruiting: In my view whether this is a big deal or not depends on just how it is done.

I have a thread over in the Orbiter forum where I post updates on our space projects in the General Discussion section. If I post in other threads, I try to be helpful in answering technical questions and state my credentials up-front, i.e. say that I have only limited flight experience with Orbiter but know the technical background mostly from modeling in FG. I want to make sure people understand that I am not representing the Orbiter community.

Now assume I would answer questions like 'How can I download the Shuttle addon?' with a link to FG. Post my comments in ongoing addon developments that what we do in FG is so much better and easier, why don't people pack and leave Orbiter? Make strong political statements that Orbiter should actually be free (as in GPL) software and not just free of charge. How long do you think I would be welcome in the forum?

The point is - there's a 3rd party repository thread. Informing users about what you have, what you do in your community is perfectly okay. Trying to divert people in other threads by stating how much better your 3rd party work is, misleading them as to who you represent or answering requests to links to FG with links to a 3rd party repository is not okay.

* Copyright: I have personally no issue with people dropping all the content checks on their repository. I have an issue with telling someone 'this is not yet GPL licensed, don't distribute this yet' and he does it anyway, and I see the GPL text backing me up in this - but that's a side-issue with Israel.

I have an issue with being lax with copyrighted material combined with suggesting there would be no real issue merging it all back to FG if we just wanted - because there is a real issue.

In summary - other than you seem to suggest, my response to FGMembers actions is driven by very specific instances of actions or misinformation happening in this forum. I have no wish to disturb FGMembers on their infrastructure, I see no issue with the existence of a fork as such, and I would see no issue if proponents here would post in a way that makes it clear whom they represent and advertize in a fair way in the right place for 3rd party repositories. Be honest to people about advantages and disadvantages of their alternative approach. If these specific instances on the FG forum would stop, I would see no issue at all with peaceful coexistence.

Sadly, they do not seem to stop.
Thorsten
 
Posts: 10988
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 am

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby bugman » Wed May 18, 2016 9:23 am

Lydiot wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 4:09 pm:
Thorsten wrote in Tue May 17, 2016 3:24 pm:Okay, I take back the 'widely'.

Do you agree with the rest of the post?


Since we're talking about a specific subset of users I don't think it's relevant. My point has only been that it's unfair to lay all blame at their doorstep when the fundamental problem is disagreement. They want you to change things and you don't want to. You don't mind them contributing if they change their ways to conform to yours and they don't want that. It's a disagreement about how to go about things. I see the merit in what you guys are doing, but I don't see the point in vilifying these guys because they chose to go off on their own. There may be other reasons to not like them, such as some members' demeanor, but that's a different issue. That's been my point.


Over the last 20 years of the FlightGear project, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, who have chosen to develop outside of the core infrastructure, in 3rd party hangars, repositories, servers, etc. They are all considered to be part of the same collaborative FlightGear community. This is actively encouraged.

However with FGMEMBERS, the situation is quite different. And this is due to one single point - Israel's goal which is not for peaceful coexistence, but rather to crush and replace the FlightGear content infrastructure. I advised him that he should rather choose peace. From many conversations and private messages, I know I am not alone. For example I suggested setting up the major part of FGMEMBERS to be 1-to-1 mirrors of the FGAddon aircraft, importantly without modification, and have a separate set for development (e.g. renamed forks, not branches of the FGAddon set). I.e. to separate the powerful aircraft distribution idea of FGMEMBERS from the 3rd party, zero-barrier, anarchic development hangar idea. I gave Israel, in private emails, many different options that would allow FGMEMBERS to fit peacefully into the ecosystem. However he strongly disagreed with my suggestions and chose not to back down on his goal of actively trying to replace the official infrastructure. Instead he reverted to the tactic of vilifying a large set of the core developers in public, and much worse in private emails. The attacks in private were particularly vicious. Unfortunately it can be seen that Israel's goal and his passion behind it still remains to this day:

IAHM-COL wrote:in the Jabberwocky forum, Sun May 15, 2016 7:29 pm:
But really, the best ultimate solution for the project at this point is that they archive SVN FGADDon and they move all aircraft development to FGMEMBERS as a more solid development sandbox.
I can shoulder the work needed to do that in 2 hours !!. But I assure you, since this means for them to loose a bit of face value, that is not going to be happening that easily.


Israel could chose to back down on this one single issue. But for some reason he cannot. Therefore the FlightGear community, as founded on newsgroups and today largely based on the development mailing list, is forced to counteract with an official FGMEMBERS statement, as well as other actions. No one wants this, but it is forced by Israel's steadfast determination.

The annoying part of the constant FGMEMBERS recruiting of people on this official forum, as well as on Mumble, is knowing that this is part of Israel's unwavering goal. This also causes a drain on the FlightGear core due to the time required to handle refugees. Yes, refugees! This is one rather glaring difference with FGMEMBERS compared to all the other 3rd party hangars and infrastructure in the FlightGear community. From what I understand, this has never happened before - never in the project's history has there been the issue of refugees. This is generally not visible as these communications are in private. But it is not a simple situation to deal with when someone turns to us when they feel that they have been deceived (I have dealt with this personally quite a number of times).

Anyway, there are really only two solutions to this problem. Either Israel backs down with his goal of FGMEMBERS being the official infrastructure, and transforms FGMEMBERS into a peaceful, coexisting part of the wider FlightGear community, by separating the content distribution and development concepts (or by other means). Or the FlightGear community has to continue to deal with the fall out from the aggressive pursuit of his goal. Israel has the simple choice - is this "FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure" or "FGMEMBERS infrastructure and FlightGear infrastructure"? Any demands for changes to the FlightGear infrastructure is considered unreasonable - it is not up to the FlightGear community to change to accommodate FGMEMBERS, but rather the reverse. Any such demands will clearly show that the first option has been chosen, and that I do not need to change the title of this thread.

Regards,
Edward
bugman
Moderator
 
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:01 am
Version: next

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 10:19 am

Writen on the 12th September 2015

http://www.thejabberwocky.net/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2

FGMEMBERS is an organization on Github that holds hundreds of aircraft. You as a FlightGear user can pick the planes you want, download them and fly them for free. FGMEMBERS is an independent projects and not subject to any restrictions or censoring by the FG core development. Aircraft in FGMEMBERS are GPL licensed (according to their authors) and can therefore distributed and expanded freely and without any limitations (means, you can send them to friends, give them a new color, extra engines or whatever fancies your imagination under the rules of the GPL license).
For aircraft distributed under different licenses, take a look at the FGMEMBERS-NONGPL forum.


Your official statement about FGMEMBERS is dated 3 days later..

You know if I wanted to know what something was about I'd ask the person involved..... not go make my own statement based on my own personal opinion of the individuals involved.

Simon
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 10:26 am

bugman wrote in Wed May 18, 2016 9:23 am: Israel has the simple choice - is this "FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure" or "FGMEMBERS infrastructure and FlightGear infrastructure"? Any demands for changes to the FlightGear infrastructure is considered unreasonable - it is not up to the FlightGear community to change to accommodate FGMEMBERS, but rather the reverse. Any such demands will clearly show that the first option has been chosen, and that I do not need to change the title of this thread.

Regards,
Edward


What a crock... you titled the thread, frankly I think the thread title is an attempt at trolling.

Now requesting that things be made easier to transfer from FGmembers to FGaddon isn't in any way a hostile demand... but is in fact a means by which both sets of developers can swap work...

Yes a change is required.... big deal, if you were for the community of FG you'd just get on with it or at the least quit complaining that they exist.
Last edited by Bomber on Wed May 18, 2016 10:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby Bomber » Wed May 18, 2016 10:37 am

Israel could chose to back down on this one single issue. But for some reason he cannot. Therefore the FlightGear community, as founded on newsgroups and today largely based on the development mailing list, is forced to counteract with an official FGMEMBERS statement, as well as other actions. No one wants this, but it is forced by Israel's steadfast determination.


This forum has... Total members 6286

What world do you live in...
"If anyone ever tells you anything about an aeroplane which is so bloody complicated you can't understand it, take it from me - it's all balls" - R J Mitchel
Bomber
 
Posts: 1934
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:06 pm
OS: Windows XP and 10

Re: FGMEMBERS infrastructure vs. FlightGear infrastructure.

Postby jaxsin » Wed May 18, 2016 11:28 am

...one in which the populace is closer to ~6 Billion
jaxsin
 
Posts: 396
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:54 pm

PreviousNext

Return to 3rd Party Repositories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron