I thought that was because people wanted to use Karaf for creating servers that weren't traditionally thought of as "enterprise" rather than a rejection of enterprise, perhaps I misunderstood the discussion though.
I think we should stick with Enterprise since it is used by Java and OSGi to describe the space Aries is in. Alasdair On 15 October 2010 10:15, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: > Me moved from: > a software related to an OSGI based runtime for creating enterprise > servers > > to: > a software providing higher level features and services specifically > designed for creating OSGi-based servers > > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 11:07, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Guillaume, thanks for the advice on the word 'enterprise'. What did >> Karaf use instead? :-) >> >> On 15 October 2010 09:52, Guillaume Nodet <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I think the Aries community is ready for graduation. I also think a TLP >> > makes more sense in this case as the project is sufficient enough to >> become >> > a TLP. >> > There has been some relationship with Felix (through the use of OBR, >> etc...) >> > but not enough to warrant becoming a subproject of Felix. That would >> make >> > Felix subcommunities even more disconnected I think. >> > >> > As for the charter, I just want to warn against the use of the word >> > 'enterprise' in it has it has been considered an 'happy market term' in >> the >> > past and rejected for Karaf at least. >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 15:48, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Cheers, >> > Guillaume Nodet >> > ------------------------ >> > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ >> > ------------------------ >> > Open Source SOA >> > http://fusesource.com >> > >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > Guillaume Nodet > ------------------------ > Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/ > ------------------------ > Open Source SOA > http://fusesource.com > -- Alasdair Nottingham [email protected]
