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

[Morten Moeller <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.
> 
> .
>