SMF 2.0.19 has been released! Please update. Read more.
Started by Norv, February 24, 2012, 07:49:09 AM
Quotebut what events of recent weeks?
QuoteAnd what transparency
QuoteI don't know what you've been accused of lying about...
Quotebut if it was the comment that Nao made above, about Elkarte folks and the statement from the lawyers regarding copyright, I will state that, whoever claimed on Elkarte that "they were right all along" was hallucinating and has it completely turned around.
QuoteLike the fact that no-one on the team is going to stand up, here, and actually admit 1) there's a problem, 2) that the problem needs fixing and 3) talking to the community about fixing it.
QuoteFor example... this whole debate on the copyright. It's a pretty big issue that affects anyone who's ever contributed to the project's source code at any point, including people committing via GitHub with a DCO. But had it not been for Norv doing what we both agree was handled badly, plus (months later) taking it to a lawyer, plus having to be pushed multiple times, before there's anything resembling a conclusion.
QuoteNeither do I.
Quotethey actually were kind of right, certainly more correct than what was there before.
QuoteWe shouldn't be having this conversation because instead of talking to the community about it and explaining what was going on and why (you know, being transparent), there should have been an announcement which would have probably settled the matter. Small wonder there have been accusations of copyright grabbing, though they're probably as spurious as other claims. At least, I'd like to think so.
QuoteSo, what's the real state of smCore? What's the real state of SMF 2.1? Your community is watching. They deserve to have their faith rewarded.
QuoteI think that might show more that not being on the team and only acting on "what I've heard" may show it's better if internal material stays being handled internal and release what's prudent to be released on own accord, as wrong conclusion can be drawn easily based on "what i've heard", as I think you know pretty well.
QuoteThe problem has been fixed. Whether that took a while to make sure it was done thoroughly or not is subject to debate, perhaps, but i'm not sure what people rather see: doing stuff without thinking or talking (ergo: handling it badly) or making very sure everything is done correctly... The latter usually takes more time. And sure, you may label that as slow. To me, I feel the end result is most important: is a problem fixed or not? Yes? Good.
QuoteWell perhaps, instead of playing referee or how ever you wish to call it yourself, you should actually leave it up to the team to work on releasing news when the need is there, how and how fast. Perhaps instead of saying everything should be done instantly, you should leave it up to the team to chose what, how and when to do something.
QuoteDoes that really make SM/SMF so bad because the opinion on speed differs?
QuoteDon't get me wrong by the way, I hope you don't see this as an attack to you.
QuoteWe're not in a rush and take time extensively to see what the best way forward is with all projects under the SM umbrella, including but not limited to smCore. Projects are being checked and when anything new is there to be announced: the community will always be informed. We haven't done anything else in the past, nor will we in the future. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that SMF would not keep the community informed.
QuoteThe state of SMF 2.1 isn't so hard to find by the way: it is moving forward properly. Perhaps somewhat slow compared to other forum software out there, but SMF doesn't exactly have a reputation of being lightning fast with releases and I personally don't think there is anything wrong with that.
QuoteSMF 2.x is a rock solid SMF edition, making new releases simply for the sake of releasing is pretty much not how SMF has rolled in the past and I don't think it should ever.
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMThe fact that nothing ever seems to happen without some kind of issue flaring up to prompt some kind of action. See point about *transparency*.
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMI shouldn't have to make inferences about this stuff. This is one of the reasons SMF finds it so hard to recruit developers, because no-one wants to trust it, and with good reason given what's happened before - once they get behind The Wall, they see how it really is, how it's been for years.
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMI can only speculate that this is the big reason behind keeping things 'under wraps'.
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMYou mean a problem that most wouldn't have even realised SMF had, had it not been pre-empted? A problem that some people are pretending didn't exist and that wasn't a problem in the first place?
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMA problem that those impacted by it may not even have been contacted about yet? (Those who signed a CLA and committed material while the CLA was still in force, they're probably assumed to have consented. Anyone else, e.g. DCO contributors... that's a different matter.)
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMTake the current copyright issue. How long has that been going on? How many months ago was it that a developer, who by then had left, whose access to the repository hadn't been removed, came back to quietly make a huge change? Without even getting into the 'how did it happen' malarky... why did it take so long to figure out that going to a lawyer was necessary?
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMWhy wasn't a lawyer consulted as soon as the NPO took over, to clarify what the NPO actually had copyright to?
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMThis is the sort of issue that really gets my goat: SMF is floundering by any measure you care to name, and a lot of that is managerial issues.
Quote from: Arantor on February 17, 2013, 08:54:39 PMBefore anyone waves the 'but Wedge has had 2 1/2 years', yes it's had 2 1/2 years. It's also had tens of thousands of lines of iterations and coming up to 2,000 (SVN, not Git) commits, including a redesigned theme engine, a rebuilt from scratch package manager and so on. Small changes like what 2.1 looks like should not take 18 months.
QuoteOf course it can. That's part of the problem. The fact that nothing ever seems to happen without some kind of issue flaring up to prompt some kind of action. See point about *transparency*.I shouldn't have to make inferences about this stuff. This is one of the reasons SMF finds it so hard to recruit developers, because no-one wants to trust it, and with good reason given what's happened before - once they get behind The Wall, they see how it really is, how it's been for years.I can only speculate that this is the big reason behind keeping things 'under wraps'.
QuoteYou mean a problem that most wouldn't have even realised SMF had, had it not been pre-empted? A problem that some people are pretending didn't exist and that wasn't a problem in the first place?
QuoteTake the current copyright issue. How long has that been going on? How many months ago was it that a developer, who by then had left, whose access to the repository hadn't been removed, came back to quietly make a huge change? Without even getting into the 'how did it happen' malarky... why did it take so long to figure out that going to a lawyer was necessary? Why wasn't a lawyer consulted as soon as the NPO took over, to clarify what the NPO actually had copyright to? (Because if it was, none of this would have been an issue in the first place) But instead it was done over 18 months later, only after someone had already tampered with it.
QuoteThere's slow, there's slow, and there's what I can only call burying heads in sand and hoping the problem goes away.
QuoteIt's not an attack on me, nor do I see it as one. You're one of the few people I've had the pleasure of talking to who can actually attack a position, not a person. In reciprocation, I'm trying hard not to target a single individual for anything that's gone on here. I don't care who did (or did not) do something. I'm just annoyed that stuff isn't happening when if SMF wants to survive, it needs to start happening.
QuoteWell, let's see... no-one appears to be saying or doing anything about the fact that smCore is dead and isn't going to be relaunched in any practical form (seeing how all of its contributors left). So, what's the plan?
QuoteHere's the thing: SMF is a project in dire need of competent developers. No developer is going to magically come along and rescue the project, especially not with all the horror stories. I keep hearing talk of how it's all different now, but I'm just not convinced.
QuoteBut anyway, the question of the hour: does anyone have anything resembling a plan at all? Is anyone going to share with the community what that plan might be?
QuoteWhat's left to do in 2.1? If anyone had any idea of what was missing, maybe you'd get some help.Is there going to be a 2.2? Or will the next version be 3.0? What's the plan for these things? Is there a plan? Assuming there is a plan and someone has some idea what's going on, who's going to go build it?
QuoteWhich brings me back to the small matter of the lack of devs. If you communicate with the community about the plan, there is a small chance - and it is, sadly, small, though not as small as straight up wishful thinking - that a developer might be inclined to get involved.I am aware that even discussing this issue publicly is going to put potential developers off as things stand - but I'm also aware that people who go into something with the best of intentions might be soured by what they find. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.
QuoteThere's only one software going more slowly than SMF right now, and that's XenForo.As for not having a reputation of going 'lightning fast', there's another reason why all the momentum left and took most of the competent developers with it. Not going 'lightning fast' is one thing, but taking 18 months to get to the level of perceived change in 2.1 seems... slow. I've tried 2.1, and while what there is is good (and due credit to the people who made it what it is), it doesn't really feel like a huge step forward.Before anyone waves the 'but Wedge has had 2 1/2 years', yes it's had 2 1/2 years. It's also had tens of thousands of lines of iterations and coming up to 2,000 (SVN, not Git) commits, including a redesigned theme engine, a rebuilt from scratch package manager and so on. Small changes like what 2.1 looks like should not take 18 months.I'm well aware that things take time, and that quality should not be rushed, but this seems wrong somehow.
QuoteIt is pretty solid, yes, necessitating 4 patches in 1 1/2 years is good going (for comparison, SMF 1.1.x had 18 patches across 6 1/2 years, roughly 3/year). But if you're not going to release, need to keep in touch with users, to let them know what's going on. I find this very topic hilarious, given that it was set out by the previous lead dev last year about a plan that doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
QuoteLike I pointed out: problems cannot be solved if they are not put to attention of the team.
QuoteYou seem, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, to imply that each and every *potential* problem that could be in SMF has to be known by the team.
QuoteI do agree whole heartidly that it is sometimes excruciatingly difficult to get something moving around here. No doubt.
QuoteBut... That's what happens when you're working with volunteers. People have lives. (At least, some of us *grin*)
QuoteI am glad to tell you it's not the correct assumption to make though. It is regrettably indeed an assumption, and it's too bad you think so negative about it. That's up to you, of course. But please, don't make the mistake of seeing that assumption as a immediate fact.
QuoteThe issue you are referring to was *not* an issue when the NPO was formed, or that is to say: Not in it's current form, it was handled differently at the time. Changes over the years however generated a new problem that was indeed not seen at first sight. And it pretty much isn't an issue anymore now though.
QuoteJust... Patience! (I'd almost add "young Padawan!" to that, but you're near officially OLD. No worries, you don't have to thank me for saying that. )
QuoteEven though indeed, the past is something to learn from and that's a good thing: better the process, better the environment. There have most certainly been some mistakes, some good things mistaken for mistakes and good things in a whole. It just strikes me that people in general usually solely focus on the negative instead of the good and the bad, and that on my part slightly annoys me heh.
QuoteAppearances can be deceiving, might I just note that. And you can ask anyone on the team to confirm that if you do not wish to take my word for it.
QuoteI think that perhaps a whole fresh load of devs might prove to be a different situation than the same people being involved all the time. Fresh winds and bla.
QuoteDuly noted: you, and probably more people, are in need of a status update on 2.1.Granted, I do not think the developers will have any problems at all divulging that information and I would be very happy if people stepped up to help: it may speed things up! Help is appreciated and it is what makes it community driven.
QuoteBut sure, everyone could be disappointed, but it can go another way as well: sheer happines to be working on a still very much promising project. Past is past, and the past has given valueable lessons.
QuoteI'll take your word on XenForo, I don't know them.
QuoteWell, in regards to SMF 2.1. I guess it's a matter of taste. And perhaps also a reason why you took the road of creating a fork.
QuoteSMF 2.1 will be offering some splendid new functionality, rewritten parts, patched up current functionality, more in par with "today's world", et cetera. Is it a 100% new product? Nope. Does it *have* to be? Imho: Nope.
QuoteYou're free to be disappointed because you had hoped to see far more changes and a 100% new SMF product, but I have a opposite preference: I like SMF sticking to it's root in large lines but DOES take wishes of the community, and of course: self made up new functions, rewrites, etc, in mind with the upcomming SMF 2.1.
Quote(My god, that whole part sounds horribly OMG MARKETING!!1! but it is my sincere personal opinion on the software.)
QuoteI mean, if you look at it that way: SMF 2.x wasn't a super huge change over SMF 1.x either: SMF 2.x also remained true to it's roots set out in SMF 1.x. Did it come with new functionality, a new design, large rewritten parts: Absolutely. But in essence, SMF is still SMF. The same is happening with SMF 2.1. Although, I ofcourse must admit SMF 2.x did have some *major* code differences over 1.x. (That is NOT to say that 2.1 doesn't have that. But, perhaps less than what you personally had hoped for. Which is probably another reason why you chose to make a rewrite of your own.)
QuotePerhaps it could have been done faster, perhaps it could not have been. We had a few setbacks.But... SMF 2.1 is getting closer to a release each day that passes. And that is a prime example of what I see as a good thing.
QuoteYeah, you can certainly argue it's taken it's damn time... But you can also look on the bright side of life (yep, that was a reference.) and focus on happy thoughts: It's getting closer to RC status day by day.
QuoteYou're asking to receive a basket full of cookies at once. There will be news.
Quote from: [email protected] on February 18, 2013, 08:44:21 AMWe all, to a member, have different ideas about which direction(s) the future of SMF (The software) takes. As most know, I would've preferred SMF v2 never to have happened and for SMF v1 to have been expanded to include new features, if required, and other stuff.
Quote from: [email protected] on February 18, 2013, 08:44:21 AMBut, apart from the direction that the ol' software takes, do many, really, give a stuff about the rest of it?
QuoteOne thing that I'd like to add, Arantor...This "Transparency" thing is all to the well-and-good.However, to the vast majority of people, what happens in the ol' team boards and all that stuff, is of little or no interest. They don't give a sh1t, as long as the software does something remotely similar to what they want it to do.
QuoteWe all, to a member, have different ideas about which direction(s) the future of SMF (The software) takes. As most know, I would've preferred SMF v2 never to have happened and for SMF v1 to have been expanded to include new features, if required, and other stuff.
QuoteBut, I was probably in a minority of one, there, so SMF v2 came and did it's thang.But, apart from the direction that the ol' software takes, do many, really, give a stuff about the rest of it?
QuoteI would like to still use Lotus 123...does that make sense?No.
QuoteDoes SMF want to produce a software used by many or just by a couple of people on the team?Sorry, if it sounds harsh, but that's the truth.
QuoteAnd that said, the differences between 1.x and 2.0 are not *that* big in terms of code (proven by the fact that they still share several bugs). Yes, there are changes, I'm not saying they are exactly the same, though are not *so* different (if 1.1 is win2k, then 2.0 can be the equivalent of winXP).
QuoteThe problem is exactly that.Make a second account, without team access, take a look around and tell me where you can find any (relevant and up-to-date) information about where the project is going.
QuoteIs that one of the things that the PM should be doing, perhaps?
Quotethe PM and the marketing group... yup
QuoteTBH it should not be something born from nowhere and "imposed" on the community, it's not a "procedure", it's something that you have to cultivate, day by day, listen to the community, work with them, make them feel part of the project.
QuoteOpen development is not just put the repository at github and wait. If you really aim to open development the last thing you have to do is close yourself in the ivory tower and "take decisions".
QuoteUnfortunately I always see procedures and delegation (e.g. "it should be the PM") here around, instead of actually stand up and do something.
Quotethis is not "delegation". This is something that SHOULD be ongoing and SHOULD be coming from the PM and/or Marketing. After all... project status and reports is part of the job. So, it's not delegation... but you are right, the PM should gather the information and then stand up and do it....
QuoteAlso, I am uncertain what you mean by "imposed" or "procedure" or even "take decisions".Keeping people informed on the status of the project was always intended to be the job of the PM and Marketing.
QuoteIt has seemed to me for a very long time that those who control the project have more say in what happens in the future than those who build it.
QuoteComplete and total BS, Arantor. We had this dicussion elsewhere, and you keep harping on this, veen though you are STILL, as pointed out before, mistaken..
QuoteThe dev team has always had total control over what happens in the future of the project, despite mine and other's best efforts to try and get them to accept input from the other team members (and I will note here, emanuele and spuds DID take input for 2.1, so this is not directed at them at all).
QuoteAs for Norv, I've heard from others and, as far as I can tell, she is has become delusional. Given her past attitude and actions, I have no respect left for her... and that's all I'll say on the matter.
QuoteAs for doing the job... Yes. they need to get on with it. And for the last bloody, f'ing time... no one is interfering with the devs.
QuoteQuoteThe dev team has always had total control over what happens in the future of the project, despite mine and other's best efforts to try and get them to accept input from the other team members (and I will note here, emanuele and spuds DID take input for 2.1, so this is not directed at them at all).So in the first sentence you say that no-one has ever tried to tell the developers what to do. And in the second sentence you say that you had to get them to do something. Make your mind up.
QuoteI did not shout down your plugin deisgn.I commented that I feel that SMF's deisgn to allow editing of source files is one of the things that makes it more powerful than a straight forward plugin. I think that plugin designs are useful, especially for the generic user... I think that the SMF package manager should exourage plugin but support both. However, I never shouted your concept down and my comments are expressing my considered and expereinced position.
QuoteAnd this is the attitude that bothers me.You say "devs should consider and accept input form the community members"then you turn around and berate me for saying "devs should accept input from the team members"
QuoteSo, what you are really saying is "Devs should be the king of all they sruvey. They should be able to do anything they want, without consideration to anyone else and they basically are the only ones that matter, ever."That's the attitude that hurts when you have a mature product that has a much wider team than just "the developers".
QuoteWedge and Elkarte can do that, because they are not actually a real product yet.
QuoteThey have no distribution (outside of some testing) they have no community to support and no need for a team to distribute, document and support the product. Anything you have in the way of community, actually, is "borrowed" from SMF due to the fact that both projects are offshoots.
QuoteThis is not to denigrate anything you have done. I've looked at wedge. It's cool. You and Nao have done an amazing job.
QuoteYour entire community is piggybacking on the previous and current success of SMF, though.
QuoteBoth projects have made more progress since their inceptions than SMF has in the same time. What does that tell you?
Quotebut I appear to be the only one who actually cares enough to fight the good fight