10/28/2002 9:39:47 AM, Pier Fumagalli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I would just like to add one little thing. Thinking about this more >"flexible" structure where the oversight chain (committers/pmc/board) isY >different from the "grouping chain" (jakarta or xml as focal centers of >communities based around projects having different oversight chains), will >allow also project whose scope is blurred between tow different groups to be >represented by both... > >My example being Cocoon, which could be hosted by Jakarta with its >"competing alikes" Turbine, Struts, ... (web application frameworks) but at >the same time by XML because if the core technologies used by it...
A sensible way to go would be to look toward sites like Jakarta and XML (and whatever for .NET) being mainly the home of Commons projects. They could then also list and promote the other Apache Projects in their language group (many of which would be clients of the site's Commons). I think in the end we will find that the Commons idea is mostly language specific, since many of the components are filling gaps in the host language. Before long, an Apache Commons will tend to splinter into groups working on this language or that language. Any Commons component so clearly defined that it could be implemented in multiple languages that it might really be a small product. By implementing it multiple languages, it would quickly become a larger product, and then be a Project candidate. I also think that the Commons is the best way to build community among developers working on different projects. By giving them a place to share their stuff, we give everyone a chance to work together and get to know one another. Originally, Tomcat was the "anchor" for Jakarta. But looking forward, I could see the Commons filling that role instead. As we attract Committers working in other languages, like C#, they might want to establish a Commons site too, and other C# Projects listed there, regardless of whether they are living in the incubator or as a top level Project. Which brings up another critical point. I think a product hosted at a place called "incubator" might have some trouble attracting a Community. =:0) I agree with having the Project, and using the name to remind everyone what its about, but we may need to list the incubator products along side more mature products to attact a stable audience. Which brings us back to using places like Jakarta and XML like portals, rather than as product hosts. -Ted.
