Stefan Bodewig wrote:
At first I thought I wouldn't have a real opinion so wanted to see other people's responses first. After having slept over it, I realize I do have an opinion ...
:-)
The short form: +1 for having ant.apache.org with exactly one codebase, Ant. -1 for a new container project named ant.apache.org. +0 for a new container project that is *not* named Ant but contained the Ant codebase. My concern is that we must not dilute the name Ant.
Ok, I can see your point.
To me it is a rather hard decision to make as I'm wearing several hats and have to balance that in some way.
The ASF member may see benefit for the ASF if we get rid of as many container projects as we can (at the cost of swamping the board, but that's another issue).
As a PMC member, it may make live easier for the next Jakarta PMC if codebases would leave the area where the Jakarta PMC has to monitor each and every commit. Ant may not be a problem for the current PMC (Geir is the only PMC member who is technically not an Ant committer), but I'm sure the next Jakarta PMC won't have as many Ant committers on it as the current one. Then again, Ant's codebase is probably one of the best monitored codebases you can find at Apache, and this won't change in the future.
Yup.
As a member of the Ant community, I fail to see what the benefit for the Ant community would be. I pretty much doubt that Ant could be any more successful than it is right now - Ant doesn't need increased visibility at all.
Yes, it's not about visibility.
Finally, as an Ant committer, I just now found out that I do have an opinion. This one is based on a mail by Roy sent to reorg@ and the Jakarta PMC list and I want to share the relevant excerpt:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The concept of a PMC, and the reason that anyone having a vote on the project code-base should be a member of the PMC, is to provide legal protection to those people as individuals. Not being on a PMC (as defined by the bylaws) means that each and every decision made by those committers is outside the scope of Apache's legal protection, which in turn means that if a mistake is made (or some asshole lawyer just feels like it), any suit against the committer actions (such as infringement of some unknown patent) would have to be defended by the committers on their own. The ASF would be able to defend the code itself, but not the people whose actions were outside the PMC.
with that, I pretty much feel that every Ant committer needs to be in a PMC to gain the protection she/he deserves. To do that, Ant would have to become a top-level project, thus my +1 above.
I agree, this is exactly the point.
Starting another container project will result in the same problems the existing containers face - the PMCs are legally responsible for more code than they can monitor. If there was a new container, it should be extremely small. Collecting Gump, Maven, Centipede, Ant, Antidote whatever would certainly be too much for this new project's PMC.
Ok, in fact as Peter correctly points out a "federation" would be much better.
So ATM it's simple about making an Ant PMC and pushing Ant to ant.apache.org.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
