Responding to Curtis

[IAHM-COL]

https://forum.flightgear.org/viewtopic. ... 80#p285354

Disclaimer: when I use the words 'fgmembers' and 'hostile' in the same sentence, I don't mean this at the individual level. I mean it in the larger project sense, their fork, and as it pertains to the leadership over there.

The larger point is that fgmembers is clearly a hostile fork. I understand no one wants to be called hostile, so they may react angrily to that characterization, but their efforts tick all the checkboxes exactly per the definition: http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/HostileFork

1. Someone wasn't happy about how the collaborative effort was being run.
2. They started a competing project, beginning with an exact copy of all the current work.
3. They are taking their group in a different direction rather than making any attempts at consensus.
4. They are lobbying developers here to leave our effort and assist them.

Someone may argue that their effort is simply a fork and not hostile. (1) please consider the words of their founding leader himself. This is a very recent post where he cites the obligatory nazi references, then performs "the reading of the enemies list". Then he states the goal of fgmembers to replace flightgear infrastructure has now been achieved: http://thejabberwocky.net/viewtopic.php ... 499&p=8673 If these words aren't perfectly self explanatory, and aren't clearly hostile, then I honestly do not know what is. (2) Consider there is no intent, no path, no desire for the leaders of fgmembers to ever see any of their mods flow back into the mainline project.

Again, please note that I'm not specifically criticizing users associated with fgmembers. Everyone has their perspective and reasons and can discern the situation for themselves. I simply assert that the leadership and intent of the fgmembers project is hostile in the sense that they don't have the good of the original FlightGear project in mind. And it's worth pointing out for all to see that the founding member (who setup the forum that bears his name) is actually very hostile towards a large group of founding members of the FlightGear project and hostile towards our established repositories and systems.

[IAHM-COL]

Hi Curtis, First of some important Acknowledgements.

1. So far, in spite you had not given an open response to an open letter (http://thejabberwocky.net/viewtopic.php ... =437#p6895), I acknowlege you had not been deaf ears to our petition and I thank you for that. Since the letter, you (and your moderation group) have not deleted any post (that I am aware of), nor banned anyone else on the simple fact that they have a disagreement with the management-group. Nor unilaterraly locking any thread. I think that is the first step forward.

I recognize, even, that a few of your threads remain this chatter of FGMEMBERSvsFGADDON (even the title of the threads were intentionally made to represent confrontation - doh!), and you still have been more thoughful before considering using the force above the reason. And have probably advised your team to resist to be fast and strong with the "get-quiet" hammer.

I think the positive of it is that during sections of that post, I have seen some more content and less spark than we are used to see; and an examination of the tactics, but importantly some questioning of "where we go from here" have had a chance to breath.

So, I see the positive, and I hope you can listen the beautiful music beyond the stridence. Some sort of a Wagner finale kinda thing.

[IAHM-COL]

Disclaimer: when I use the words 'fgmembers' and 'hostile' in the same sentence, I don't mean this at the individual level. I mean it in the larger project sense, their fork, and as it pertains to the leadership over there.

Funny history. If I were to use the term hostile towards some of your group, I'll definitely be meaning this at the individual level. I don't think It would be fair of me to throw the term to all your group, but there is certain some pair that I could cherry pick as hostile.

[IAHM-COL]

The larger point is that fgmembers is clearly a hostile fork. I understand no one wants to be called hostile, so they may react angrily to that characterization, but their efforts tick all the checkboxes exactly per the definition: http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/HostileFork

1. Someone wasn't happy about how the collaborative effort was being run.
2. They started a competing project, beginning with an exact copy of all the current work.
3. They are taking their group in a different direction rather than making any attempts at consensus.
4. They are lobbying developers here to leave our effort and assist them.

FGMEMBERS not a fork. And the leadership? We don't have pyramids here. We are users, and developers. Think of it as a bazaar. (In E. Raymond's points of view)

Back to topic. FGMEMBERS is not a fork Of Flightgear. We have forks of aircrafts. Many of them in FGADDon. And many of them from elsewhere. And others unique to the collection so far.

We are not a fork of FG, because, we can-not use FGMEMBERS in the absence of FG. No-one can say: "Hey! Don't fly FlightGear, FGMEMBERS is better -- Fly FGMEMBERS instead". That's a no-sense.


What we can say is: Oh, you love flying FG? you are just like us! By the way, you can find planes and Scenery for FG 'here' as well (link to FGMEMBERS planes or scenery)

FGMEMBERs opposed to be a fork of FG, is actually your best promotion.

Someone may argue that their effort is simply a fork and not hostile

Sounds wrong to me. FGMEMBERS is simply not a fork. Let aside obviously not hostile.

[IAHM-COL]

(2) Consider there is no intent, no path, no desire for the leaders of fgmembers to ever see any of their mods flow back into the mainline project.

That is correct. I think this is the meat of the topic.

I consider there is FULL intent, and lots of desire from our side to see our content reach the core (FGADDon and Terrasync) and this is where I have been pushing you, poking you, to hear me [I apologize for being so insisting]. And if possible to open such flowback

The solution is not as difficult. (I know every single step needed), and when you and the central content's managers say "yay!" and you let me do it, you will have FGADDon, and Terrasync updated/synced overnight. What is missing: You need to want it.

If you said this, I interpret you actually starting to want FGMEMBERS' content flowing back? That I am happy to hear, and I am happy to provide the means to make it happen. Are you honestly willing to see this happening?

[KL-666]

Just one little comment on the title at the other end. It should not have been "versus" but "and". Fgmembers and Fgaddon. That may just have sparked a bit less controversy.

Kind regards, Vincent

[jwocky]

Of course, the king of the self-proclaimed gatekeepers things of everything that diminishes his power over what aircraft the users are allowed to use as "hostile". He only forgets, neither FGMEMBERS nor TerraGit is a fork, so, if they are not forks, how can they be hostile forks? All we did was working for the community. How is that hostile? It can be only hostile if it collides with the claims of power with single persons. Those persons take everything out of their control naturally as hostile. Any questions about the mindset over there left?

[IAHM-COL]

yup. Pretty much. And that's the only problem I see with syncing the contents[*]. But the objection is not on our side. And that's my point.
Furthermore... where we go from here? If they are willing to release the RheinGold, we can walk together to the Walhalla.

I say I am glad to extend the petition once again.

------Footnotes
[*] read as the problem is emotional, not technical.

[jwocky]

Errrr ... I know, you love your classic music ... still, I am not so old that I need to go to Walhalla soon .. just saying.

[IAHM-COL]

They were Gods. Immortal. And free to go to Walhallas without state-transitions.