Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Henri Yandell wrote: On 3/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, back in Jakarta's heyday, the general list was the meeting place for all the subprojects. It was a lot of fun. I'm not sure we could do that on an apache-wide scale though. Part of the fun was because we knew each other, and that there was a topic domain that was narrow, but broad enough to span Jakarta. We also have blogging now - it was just being born (or so) in the heyday. So if I come up with something I want to talk about, I can just blog it. And do you find the same richness of discussion and camaraderie in blogging that I felt (and I believe others did too) in the fun and froth of [EMAIL PROTECTED] geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/10/06, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/06, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that mailing-lists are part of the foundation of the ASF and are a really useful way to communicate effectively. However my feeling is that we don't have the right tools or policies to use them as effectively as could be. For example, as a commiter, I find it extremely annoying that I have to subscribe to a mailing-list just to post a message on it. Also most archives aren't really user-friendly. Not being able to do a simple search on ALL mailing lists is for me a major drawback. So I'd suggest (if possible) the following ideas: * Give any commiter the necessary rights to send an e-mail on any mailing list without having to subscribe. * Provide fully searchable mailing-list archives. That's perhaps part of the solution. Really we have two problems: 1. Managing information 2. Providing suitable forums for cross-project collaboration In the first case, it's a matter of filtering the massive amount of information that goes through the mailing lists. I can't subscribe to them all. I'm over-subscribed as it is. So while I want to know about other conversations, I need a filtering mechanism. One solution that I really liked were the Apache newsletters we had going on a little while ago. It was a nice way to know about what was going on in each project's little corner of the ASF. If we could extract similar information from the mailing lists and create smart digests that would perhaps suffice. +1 i've been thinking on problems related to this for a while now. when my cube blew up about this time year, it took me about a month to take control of my emails: all my email filters were on the drive that fried. i'm now fed up of evolution but upgrading or switching means recreating all my filters. i'd also like to be able to use the same filters on client or server. i'd also like to be able to create more complex rules. domain specific language? drools? james maillets? xslt - client specific configurations? i think it could be done but i just can't find the cycles right now :( Another matter is providing spaces for cross-project collaboration. In this matter, I'm not sure I have any solution, though I'm not sure additional mailing lists are really the best idea. That might only add to the email overload. is it the media or the way it's used? maybe we just need tagged emails and meta-data apache has used [VOTE] and [PROPOSAL] tags for ages over in jakarta commons, the subject prefix tag allows people to pick out the conversations they are interested on. agora works well at picking out social networks and centers of gravity. should be possible to use metrics to assess the importance of an email conversation (lots of people i'm interested in all talking on one thread is probably something i should be interested in). would need a new generation of email clients and more cycles than i have, though :( - robert
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/10/06, Mike Kienenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should subscribe all apache mail lists to one google account and figure out how to have a web site proxy searches into it... You'd think Google would be enthusiastic to support this -- right now, there's a zillion of us all individual subscribed to a different subset of apache mailing lists primarily so that we can do mailing list searches :) gmail just can't cut it ATM too few filters of too little complexity no support for tagging and meta-data. no social network analysis IMHO this kind of software has big commercial potential so maybe there's coders at work on this problem as we speak... - robert
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Well, back in Jakarta's heyday, the general list was the meeting place for all the subprojects. It was a lot of fun. I'm not sure we could do that on an apache-wide scale though. Part of the fun was because we knew each other, and that there was a topic domain that was narrow, but broad enough to span Jakarta. What's wrong with [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's open to all committers and one of it's intended goals was to provide exactly what you describe.. - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBHORJrNPMCpn3XdAQLHaAP9FD6HsdvzvyjSzzI6eCwzHqKOKS4Q4Ysa YK10ywdxvmH876c9Xg/G+DRNkPk5a0W3FiKoatiZXx8LkyXuAJUn3K+vps03S3wS AOBUlw2PB9T098Sa1iEgdQ46g74DM4A45WN2TnuxHr+2+Iob/5hVIyr2CcjOFY+O o/KXaLnOnYI= =6+cn -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Well, back in Jakarta's heyday, the general list was the meeting place for all the subprojects. It was a lot of fun. I'm not sure we could do that on an apache-wide scale though. Part of the fun was because we knew each other, and that there was a topic domain that was narrow, but broad enough to span Jakarta. What's wrong with [EMAIL PROTECTED] That's open to all committers and one of it's intended goals was to provide exactly what you describe.. Dunno. I always think of it as related to community issues, rather than limited-interest technology-related discussion... geir - -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Ken.Coar.Org/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQCVAwUBRBHORJrNPMCpn3XdAQLHaAP9FD6HsdvzvyjSzzI6eCwzHqKOKS4Q4Ysa YK10ywdxvmH876c9Xg/G+DRNkPk5a0W3FiKoatiZXx8LkyXuAJUn3K+vps03S3wS AOBUlw2PB9T098Sa1iEgdQ46g74DM4A45WN2TnuxHr+2+Iob/5hVIyr2CcjOFY+O o/KXaLnOnYI= =6+cn -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, back in Jakarta's heyday, the general list was the meeting place for all the subprojects. It was a lot of fun. I'm not sure we could do that on an apache-wide scale though. Part of the fun was because we knew each other, and that there was a topic domain that was narrow, but broad enough to span Jakarta. We also have blogging now - it was just being born (or so) in the heyday. So if I come up with something I want to talk about, I can just blog it. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? I know that mailing-lists are part of the foundation of the ASF and are a really useful way to communicate effectively. However my feeling is that we don't have the right tools or policies to use them as effectively as could be. For example, as a commiter, I find it extremely annoying that I have to subscribe to a mailing-list just to post a message on it. Also most archives aren't really user-friendly. Not being able to do a simple search on ALL mailing lists is for me a major drawback. So I'd suggest (if possible) the following ideas: * Give any commiter the necessary rights to send an e-mail on any mailing list without having to subscribe. * Provide fully searchable mailing-list archives. I think this would help reducing the boundaries between each project as any commiter would be able to comment and participate to a specific discussion on any project. And I'd simply define a few search criteria that I'm interested in and check these once a while on all list archives. Cheers, Matthieu. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/9/06, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? I know that mailing-lists are part of the foundation of the ASF and are a really useful way to communicate effectively. However my feeling is that we don't have the right tools or policies to use them as effectively as could be. For example, as a commiter, I find it extremely annoying that I have to subscribe to a mailing-list just to post a message on it. Also most archives aren't really user-friendly. Not being able to do a simple search on ALL mailing lists is for me a major drawback. So I'd suggest (if possible) the following ideas: * Give any commiter the necessary rights to send an e-mail on any mailing list without having to subscribe. * Provide fully searchable mailing-list archives. what apache lacks is volunteers, not ideas moderation at the moment is a PITA but could be much easier. collective management through a web interface using spam assassin ratings to pick out the ham is technically possible. using public key signature to automatically moderate posts from committers through is also very possible from a technical perspective. the apache mailing list archives are open source: the technology to enable fully searchability is already here at apache. all that's lacking are people willing to step up and help infrastructure make this happen - robert - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Echoing robert... inline Matthieu Riou wrote: One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? I know that mailing-lists are part of the foundation of the ASF and are a really useful way to communicate effectively. However my feeling is that we don't have the right tools or policies to use them as effectively as could be. For example, as a commiter, I find it extremely annoying that I have to subscribe to a mailing-list just to post a message on it. Also most archives aren't really user-friendly. Not being able to do a simple search on ALL mailing lists is for me a major drawback. So I'd suggest (if possible) the following ideas: * Give any commiter the necessary rights to send an e-mail on any mailing list without having to subscribe. It's not a rights issue, but simply a mechanical issue of how the lists work. Maybe there is a post-ok-don't-send mode. Or maybe we could cook up a gateway for committers [EMAIL PROTECTED] or something... * Provide fully searchable mailing-list archives. Hey! thanks for volunteering! :) I think this would help reducing the boundaries between each project as any commiter would be able to comment and participate to a specific discussion on any project. Well, back in Jakarta's heyday, the general list was the meeting place for all the subprojects. It was a lot of fun. I'm not sure we could do that on an apache-wide scale though. Part of the fun was because we knew each other, and that there was a topic domain that was narrow, but broad enough to span Jakarta. And I'd simply define a few search criteria that I'm interested in and check these once a while on all list archives. Hey! Thanks for volunteering! :) Maybe we should subscribe all apache mail lists to one google account and figure out how to have a web site proxy searches into it... geir - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/9/06, Matthieu Riou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know that mailing-lists are part of the foundation of the ASF and are a really useful way to communicate effectively. However my feeling is that we don't have the right tools or policies to use them as effectively as could be. For example, as a commiter, I find it extremely annoying that I have to subscribe to a mailing-list just to post a message on it. Also most archives aren't really user-friendly. Not being able to do a simple search on ALL mailing lists is for me a major drawback. So I'd suggest (if possible) the following ideas: * Give any commiter the necessary rights to send an e-mail on any mailing list without having to subscribe. * Provide fully searchable mailing-list archives. That's perhaps part of the solution. Really we have two problems: 1. Managing information 2. Providing suitable forums for cross-project collaboration In the first case, it's a matter of filtering the massive amount of information that goes through the mailing lists. I can't subscribe to them all. I'm over-subscribed as it is. So while I want to know about other conversations, I need a filtering mechanism. One solution that I really liked were the Apache newsletters we had going on a little while ago. It was a nice way to know about what was going on in each project's little corner of the ASF. If we could extract similar information from the mailing lists and create smart digests that would perhaps suffice. Another matter is providing spaces for cross-project collaboration. In this matter, I'm not sure I have any solution, though I'm not sure additional mailing lists are really the best idea. That might only add to the email overload. -- jaaron - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/9/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Maybe we should subscribe all apache mail lists to one google account and figure out how to have a web site proxy searches into it... You'd think Google would be enthusiastic to support this -- right now, there's a zillion of us all individual subscribed to a different subset of apache mailing lists primarily so that we can do mailing list searches :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/9/06, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that if we acknowledge that a community as a group of peers, working towards a common goal, then that would derive umbrellas from projects where there are distinctions of authority (and therefor work) within that community's codebase. I.e. either I am a committer on project X, or I am not. Exactly. This is what for instance java.net calls communities. There, every project is a TLP, but they form communities together with seperate mailing lists/forums etc. Of course, they have less structure and oversight, so they get away with this more easily. Now, that would break things up such as WS and DB, but in reality it is already happening, and the umbrella project becomes the federation of ontology. IMHO, the model is weak. I think we should strive for individual projects, no subprojects from a community perspective, and instead look for how to solve collaboration across projects, whether they are tightly coupled or not (technology wise), meaning an orthogonal collaboration view of ASF, which would guide external users as well, since project X can belong to many such views if it makes sense. Interestingly, DB is already more of a community than an umbrella project. I can't speak for WS or XML but I could imagine that the same is true for them. To some degree, this is even true for Jakarta. And there is a case for sub-projects as well, e.g. for projects that are too small to be self-governing and that perhaps have a shared set of developers and even goals (e.g. like the Jakarta commons libraries). cheers, Tom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Daniel John Debrunner wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: the only caveat being DB is feeling a little bit umbrella-ish these days. I've seen this comment a couple of times in the last week or so, but I don't really understand what it's trying to say. What makes an Apache project umbrella-ish? ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. So, good project boundaries are considered to be administrative, rather than ontological. On the other hand, there are good reasons for considering ontological domains. And as we disband umbrella projects, we have been losing communication within ontological domains that cross the administative (TLP) boundaries. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
I think that introducing ontology into the mailing lists would be a good idea. It'd be nice to know, for instance, that there is an O/R mapping project (or two as it seems: JPA and Cayenne) being added to the incubator if I'm an Apache DB committer. -Original Message- From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 10:34 AM To: general@incubator.apache.org Subject: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication Daniel John Debrunner wrote: robert burrell donkin wrote: the only caveat being DB is feeling a little bit umbrella-ish these days. I've seen this comment a couple of times in the last week or so, but I don't really understand what it's trying to say. What makes an Apache project umbrella-ish? ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. So, good project boundaries are considered to be administrative, rather than ontological. On the other hand, there are good reasons for considering ontological domains. And as we disband umbrella projects, we have been losing communication within ontological domains that cross the administative (TLP) boundaries. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On 3/8/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. So, good project boundaries are considered to be administrative, rather than ontological. On the other hand, there are good reasons for considering ontological domains. And as we disband umbrella projects, we have been losing communication within ontological domains that cross the administative (TLP) boundaries. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? I was pondering about this for quite some time (in fact I was going to prepare some notes for ApacheCon). The main problem IMHO is that there is more than one axis to take into account, and I believe, the administrative is the least important one. E.g. when I was researching my Java-XML talk for the last ApacheCon, I found three projects in Apache but only one was in XML which I would have found logical as a user. The others were in WS and in Jakarta. As far as I'm concerned, every project can be top-level in terms of administration (if they want to, e.g. the Jakarta 'model' has some merits when a project is too small). But of course, I'm ignoring other factors here such as legal and organisational ones (e.g. the role of PMCs). A bigger problem is that they are top-level in terms of visibility to the outside world. There is no coherent, as you say, ontological presentation. Some TLPs go along these lines to some degree (e.g. logging, XML, DB), but most do not. What we probably need is communities, ontological coherent groups of projects, that even may overlap. E.g. there is clearly overlap between, say, Geronimo and Tomcat, or between Geronimo and DB, mostly stemming from the very nature of EJB. cheers, Tom - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Noel J. Bergman wrote: ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. So, good project boundaries are considered to be administrative, rather than ontological. On the other hand, there are good reasons for considering ontological domains. And as we disband umbrella projects, we have been losing communication within ontological domains that cross the administative (TLP) boundaries. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? If I have to troll another mailing list to keep abreast of what's going on in ASF, I'll shoot myself. How can we minimize the amount of work to be done? Regards, Alan
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
Thomas Dudziak wrote: On 3/8/06, Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. So, good project boundaries are considered to be administrative, rather than ontological. On the other hand, there are good reasons for considering ontological domains. And as we disband umbrella projects, we have been losing communication within ontological domains that cross the administative (TLP) boundaries. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? I was pondering about this for quite some time (in fact I was going to prepare some notes for ApacheCon). The main problem IMHO is that there is more than one axis to take into account, and I believe, the administrative is the least important one. E.g. when I was researching my Java-XML talk for the last ApacheCon, I found three projects in Apache but only one was in XML which I would have found logical as a user. The others were in WS and in Jakarta. As far as I'm concerned, every project can be top-level in terms of administration (if they want to, e.g. the Jakarta 'model' has some merits when a project is too small). But of course, I'm ignoring other factors here such as legal and organisational ones (e.g. the role of PMCs). A bigger problem is that they are top-level in terms of visibility to the outside world. There is no coherent, as you say, ontological presentation. Some TLPs go along these lines to some degree (e.g. logging, XML, DB), but most do not. What we probably need is communities, ontological coherent groups of projects, that even may overlap. E.g. there is clearly overlap between, say, Geronimo and Tomcat, or between Geronimo and DB, mostly stemming from the very nature of EJB. What you're talking about is a matter of information presentation, not of 'oversight organisation'. The former is starting to be handled by a site that presents all projects navigable via different categories. This site is currently under development. What Noel is talking about more is, if we have projects in the same technological space forming TLPs, how do people working within Apache keep abreast of the developments in these other projects, without having to join _all_ of those projects mailing lists? Upayavira - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Thoughts on Umbrellas, Federations, and Communication
On Wednesday 08 March 2006 23:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Daniel John Debrunner wrote: What makes an Apache project umbrella-ish? ASF projects are supposed to be about a community managing a project. So the warning signs include large disjoint communities, e.g., Jakarta, the old XML project (which, itself, was a Jakarta spin-off), etc. One of thing things that the we need to look at is how to improve communication across projects. Perhaps having some ontological mailing lists would be part of a solution. What ideas and views do others have? I think that if we acknowledge that a community as a group of peers, working towards a common goal, then that would derive umbrellas from projects where there are distinctions of authority (and therefor work) within that community's codebase. I.e. either I am a committer on project X, or I am not. Now, that would break things up such as WS and DB, but in reality it is already happening, and the umbrella project becomes the federation of ontology. IMHO, the model is weak. I think we should strive for individual projects, no subprojects from a community perspective, and instead look for how to solve collaboration across projects, whether they are tightly coupled or not (technology wise), meaning an orthogonal collaboration view of ASF, which would guide external users as well, since project X can belong to many such views if it makes sense. Exactly which processes and tools should be employed to create such views are a bit early to discuss I think. Cheers Niclas - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
