On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:42 AM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > The Board has in the past condemned "balkanization" of community, and my > take on this situation is exactly that. > > This is not "yet another web framework", which often brought forward as > examples that the ASF encourages competition within. Those typically have a > different "angle", "approach" or "metaphor", something making each very > different beasts. But in this case we are talking about "the same spec". > There is no real distinguishing features and huge overlap of commonality. > > I think this is a NIH-syndrome in play, in the best case "oh we have the > code working already" and the worst case "we don't like to collaborate with > them", and there is reason to think that that goes for both sides of the > fence. > > I want to see Chemistry capable to absorb such contribution and collaborate > heavily to bring such codebase in. > And I want to see the people of the OpenCMIS proposal to show that they > indeed can work with others. > > Exactly how the merged community goes about with the technical integration > is its own business, but I am worried that the new codebase will not receive > the welcome I hope, the Chemistry base will dominate, and the OpenCMIS > proposer get fed up and leaves. Important Mentors understand the risks here, > and keep eyes extra open for attrition, domination and forceful > consensus-seeking. >
I agree with those sentiments. > I think discussion should continue on Chemistry dev@ list. If agreement > can't be reached there, then I am NOT in favor of incubating OpenCMIS > separately and will vote -1 to such proposal. I will also form myself an > opinion of how well Chemistry is trying to collaborate, and it may improve > or deteriorate its status with me. > I don't think it would be helpful for either OpenCMIS or Chemistry for the IPMC to just unilaterally dictate that "it must be done in Chemistry". IMHO that would make for too unlevel a playing field which could adversely impact any attempts to collaborate (or even just get stuff done). That works both ways - it would be hard for OpenCMIS being forced to be part of Chemistry, but also potentially hard for Chemistry to all of a sudden have a significant number of new committers forced upon them and upsetting the status quo. The Incubator has always been very clear about having a very low bar of entry to incubation so IMHO it shouldn't matter that the incoming podling is doing the same spec as another poddling, thats something that could be worked out during incubation. So I'd +1 accepting this new OpenCMIS proposal (if they can find champion and mentors). If we're really concerned about having multiple spec impls then we can make this a graduation requirement - neither Chemistry or OpenCMIS graduate until they've both worked out how to exist together. > This can become an excellent opportunity for all involved to show off their > ApacheWay skills > +1! > -- Niclas > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
