[Mono-list] Re: mono-hackers --> mono-devel-list

Adam Treat manyoso@yahoo.com
Mon, 3 Feb 2003 02:37:49 -0500

On Monday 03 February 2003 06:52 am, Paolo Molaro wrote:
> On 02/01/03 Adam Treat wrote:
> > On Saturday 01 February 2003 07:37 pm, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> > > No.  Many other people would be subscribed to mono-devel-list, those
> > > sharing your same interests for example.
> >
> > BTW, what is the policy for exclusion from mono-hackers?  Does this
> > include
> Adam, this was already explained to you both on IRC an on this list.
> The policy for inclusion is very easy: do something for mono. Miguel
> has handed out subscriptions to the list and cvs accounts very
> liberally.

I have already 'done something for mono' in case you haven't noticed.  Just 
for some context, so everyone else understands, I wrote the basis for the 
documentation tools, created monostyle, worked on System.Xml and other parts 
of the class libraries, written numerous bug reports and worked with you and 
all of the mono developers to get mono where it is today,

> Your exclusion has very little to do with your interest in others CLRs
> (pnet uses my own code and I'm still subscribed to mono-hackers:-).
> The mono-hackers access is a matter of trust.
> You lost the trust when you proposed to fork the code in the mono
> assemblies.

This again.  I never proposed to fork the code despite your contentions to the 
contrary.  Some more context ... one day while lurking in the Portable.NET 
IRC channel I asked about the status of Portable.NET's System.Xml.  After 
receiving the answer that it was incapable of generating the Qt# bindings I 
suggested that Portable.NET use Mono's System.Xml instead of duplicating the 
effort.  This is entirely analogous (as I've pointed out to you and to Miguel 
in numerous conversations and have yet to hear a reason why this is 
considered 'forking') to Mono's inclusion of Portable.NET's I18N libraries.  
In fact, Miguel has publicly stated that Portable.NET, DotGNU, Rotor, Intel, 
Evil Company are all welcome to work on and use Mono's class libraries (this 
was the reason stated for the X11 license change) so I find this issue of 
'forking' to be dubious.  Anyways, I've asked for clarification on what 
Miguel would like done WRT System.Xml and have explained that I never wished 
to 'fork' any of Mono's libraries and this has been met with near silence.

> Now, you can argue that that wasn't a good reason for
> losing trust in you since you have been a user/helper of mono from almost
> the very beginning.

Yes, I can argue that and I do.

> The fact is, though, that since then, you have done
> _nothing_ to regain the trust.

Why should I continue to contribute when it is so readily apparent that Miguel 
is interested in excluding me completely.  I have not seen Mono do _anything_ 
to regain my trust.