[News.eclipse.foundation] Re: [GOVERNANCE] - Mr. Kent Johnson (IBM) Obfu

[Morten Moeller <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=80775
> 
>> 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=80775
> 
> [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:
> 
> .
>