+1 to graduation and a new TLP. >From my experience, I think the incubation has been very successful. I'm not aware of any real scope issue discussions beyond the initial proposal, which I think is natural when folks are trying to get their heads around/define something new. I think our focus has been consistent around an Enterprise OSGi programming model and therefore a new TLP based on this scope would be appropriate.
On 13 October 2010 17:03, Timothy Ward <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm also +1 > > I think a new TLP seems like a good idea. Felix is already pretty big - I > think it would be unmaintainably large if we added all of our components too > - and I can't really see any other projects that would be a reasonable fit > for what we've been developing. > > Regards, > > Tim > > ---------------------------------------- >> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:41:17 +0100 >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Graduation >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] >> >> Hi, >> >> First off I agree +1. >> >> Second of all I vote for a new TLP. I think if we move into an >> existing project we risk making that other project an uber project. >> Also I am not sure what other project we would move into. >> >> Third I am not sure what the issue really is around an uber project. >> In any case we didn't argue for Clerezza to become part of aries when >> it was proposed last year and that was very soon after we were >> launched, so clearly those involved have an idea of scope. I'm not >> sure we should remove the term "Enterprise" because we are aiming to >> do things related to the OSGi Enterprise spec, so we need that to hook >> in. However we clearly aren't insisting everything in the Enterprise >> OSGi spec be done here as that would mean we would attempt to move or >> implement DS, ConfigAdmin and many others which are already in felix. >> >> Alasdair >> >> On 13 October 2010 14:48, Jeremy Hughes wrote: >> > There have been a few murmurings on the list about graduation. I >> > thought I'd kick of a specific discussion around whether to graduate >> > at all, whether to ask another TLP to take us, or go to a new TLP of >> > our own. After discussion has been had, we'll vote on another thread. >> > >> > We've carried out 2 releases, added 6 committers. Our mailing lists >> > have grown in popularity [1], and we have projects using our >> > components: JBoss OSGi, Apache Geronimo, Apache Karaf. Equally we're >> > using components from many other projects (as can be seen in our >> > poms). We have some good information on our website, although >> > naturally it can be improved. I think we're at a point where, with >> > just a little work, we would be ready to achieve graduation from the >> > Incubator. >> > >> > The graduation checklist according to the graduation guide [2] is: >> > >> > 1. Preparations >> > * Complete (and sign off) tasks documented in the status file >> > [most if not all of this is done, but the status page [3] isn't up to >> > date - I'm going through this] >> > >> > * Demonstrate ability to create Apache releases >> > [we've had two releases] >> > >> > * Demonstrate community readiness >> > [we've recruited users, developers, committers and PMCers - see news >> > section in the status. We've taken collective action and general >> > achieved what is set out in the 'community readiness' section] >> > >> > * Ensure Mentors and IPMC have no remaining issues >> > [the only remaining issue I'm aware of is the one highlighted in our >> > section of the Incubator board report: "Address project scope concerns >> > raised during acceptance vote". These concerns can be found here: >> > >> > 'But I expect the project to clarify its focus, and demonstrate >> > collaboration with other Apache projects using OSGi during >> > incubation.' (Bertrand Delacretaz) >> > http://markmail.org/message/r6adtazpj66jppes >> > >> > 'If it IS a goal to become a large component registry for "anything >> > OSGI enterprisey"' (Niclas Hedhman). >> > http://markmail.org/message/wnbcwgu6mvli5icy >> > >> > 'From the get-go, this appears headed towards an umbrella project. >> > Too many ways to justify "yeah, this belongs here" and far too >> > few ways to justify "nope, this doesn't quite fit in". So >> > whether TLP or part of Felix (as was the discussion), this appears >> > too comprehensive.' (Jim Jagielski) >> > http://markmail.org/thread/54b7ohg7cde5u5yt >> > >> > (have I missed any?) >> > >> > *If* we are to go to our own TLP then we would need a charter that >> > satisfies these concerns. We set out to build the components to enable >> > Enterprise Applications (by which I mean a la JEE but running in OSGi) >> > which I think we have made great progress towards, as a community. I >> > think we have demonstrated the scope of what we set out to achieve, we >> > just need the words to describe it.] >> > >> > 2. Decide upon destination >> > [Options are a new TLP or join an existing TLP. I, for one, would like >> > to frame a charter for a new TLP that is focused enough to satisfy the >> > concerns above. I think the word Enterprise has been contentious and >> > we should either define what we mean by it (my preference) or choose >> > another word.] >> > >> > 3. Prepare a resolution (top level candidates only). >> > 4. Subproject acceptance VOTE by destination Project (subproject >> > candidates only) >> > 5. Incubator PMC (IPMC): >> > * For top level candidates, this is a recommendation VOTE >> > * For subproject candidates, this is a graduation approval VOTE >> > So actually perhaps this isn't a Graduation discussion, but a >> > Recommendation discussion :-) >> > >> > 6. Final hand-over >> > 7. Consider post graduation tasks >> > >> > Please comment freely. >> > >> > [1] http://pulse.apache.org/#aries-dev_at_incubator.apache.org >> > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html >> > [3] http://incubator.apache.org/projects/aries.html >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Jeremy >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Alasdair Nottingham >> [email protected] >
