[asterisk-dev] Asterisk 1.6 Realtime Database must use ', ' not '|' in appdata field?

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Wednesday 28 May 2008 12:19:44 Steve Totaro wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 May 2008 10:33:22 Steve Totaro wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:28 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >> > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 07:41:28PM -0400, Donny Kavanagh wrote:
> >> >> Since you asked here is a quote from you
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> Time for John Todd to step up to his new role.  Maybe keep Mr. Lesher
> >> >> in check.
> >> >
> >> > And that's an attack on which of those people?
> >>
> >> The only thing I can see being construed as a "personal attack" is
> >> "Maybe keep Mr. Lesher in check." but I feel he was not representing
> >> Digium properly.
> >
> > Clearly, you've made many assumptions about this project that are
> > incorrect. One of those is that I represent Digium, that I tow the party
> > line, that I say what I am told to say.  I think if there's anything that
> > this thread has demonstrated, none of those are correct.
>
> Conflict of interest in my opinion.  JT states opposite and more
> cooperative views of Digium's outlook than you do.  You are an
> employee.

John Todd and I state different opinions, neither of which are the official
word from Digium.

> >> Essentially, he was saying Digium's way or the highway, fork, go away,
> >> I don't care what your opinion or thoughts are...
> >
> > I never told anybody to fork.  And I've never said that the way the
> > developers chose was Digium's way.  The development is controlled by the
> > community of developers, some of whom are full time paid employees of
> > Digium and some of whom are not.  Who is paying the developers figures
> > very little into the decisions made.  Yes, there are development projects
> > that Digium directs me to do; this was not one of them.  I made this
> > decision (me, myself, NOT Digium) that the dialplan needed a good bit of
> > reform to make it easier to use in the future (the amount of escaping
> > that needed to be done was the primary reason).
> >
> > Now my decision alone is not enough -- I simply made the decision to put
> > development effort into that project.  In fact, I discussed it on this
> > list in June and July 2007 (incidentally, BEFORE I was employed by
> > Digium), and as a result of those discussions, we proceeded.  I want to
> > emphasize that the discussions to make this change occurred here, in an
> > open forum.
>
> Link please?  Was "Development Effort" discussed or the specifics of
> this thread?

http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2007-June/028193.html
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-dev/2007-July/028697.html

> > And here is another assumption that you've made, that Digium is somehow
> > in control of the project.  The people who are actually doing the
> > development work are the people who are in control of the project.  You
> > might consider Digium in the role of a benevolent sponsor, who sees
> > Asterisk development as a public good and contributes funds towards that
> > end.
>
> Here is another assumption that you've made.
> I would not say "Benevolent" is the proper term.  Asterisk is a loss
> leader for Digium.

I think that's quibbling over semantics.  Yes, it's true that one model of
open source business relies on giving away something of value, but it's no
less benevolent because somewhere down the road, the good will generated may
benefit them.  That's like saying I give money to the soup kitchen, because
someday, I might have to patronize one.

> >> I don't think it is wise to have a developer crossing into a spokesman
> >> position when that is not his job.  Speak to the merits of why the
> >> decision was made only, do not imply directly or indirectly that
> >> developer's and user's opinions and thoughts are going to /dev/null
> >> (even if they are).
> >
> > I am not a spokesperson, and it is not my job to tow the company line.  I
> > state my opinions, as an experienced developer of the project, as I
> > always have, and I probably will continue to do.  I don't wish to belabor
> > the point, but I have a long track record of development on Asterisk,
> > most of which was performed prior to my employment with Digium.  When I
> > changed jobs, my opinions did not change, I did not alter the way I
> > interacted with this list, and my eye color stayed the same.  In short,
> > I'm the same person as always.
>
> Ok but still a conflict of interest.  If Digium states one thing and
> you work for them, and have a different opinion, then you should take
> it up with your boss.

Digium, to the best of my knowledge, has not stated a position.

> >> Tilghman was directly showing through his posts the opposite of what
> >> JT stated was his position and therefore Digium's position.  Mixed
> >> signals from a company are a very bad thing, they should be on the
> >> same page and have the same philosophy.  Maybe a big mission statement
> >> banner might help!
> >
> > Clearly, what I post is independent of the company for which I work!
>
> Clearly a conflict of interest when your attitude is not inline with
> what Digium is publicly announcing through their spokesperson, JT.

John Todd is not a spokesperson, Digium has made no announcement, and to the
best of my knowledge, Digium has taken no position.  There is no conflict of
interest when there is no specific statement to the contrary, just opinions
from two different employees.  And I really don't see that the company is
likely to take a position on this, though I've been wrong before.

-- 
Tilghman