Quoting "Hamilton Verissimo de Oliveira (Engenharia - SPO)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi Aaron, good read. Just want to point out: Hello hammett! > -----Mensagem original----- > De: J Aaron Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > * Should we promote one or both containers as top level projects? > > (TLP) > > Having a TLP is not trivial, and I'll quote Greg Stein message to Avalon's > PMC: > > "With my Director hat on, I would also state that I would be *very* leery > of creating a second TLP for Avalon-derived code and the people associated > with that. If it can't be handled properly here, then what will make me > believe that it can be handled on its own? It almost sounds like a > delaying tactic towards eventual failure. I'm not saying I *wouldn't* give > a +1, but there better be a good, convincing argument :-)" I reread that message before I sent my email. I believe there is a good case for the seperation of the projects into new TLP's. Is it trivial? No. But neither is a fork. > So, even if we got two TLP and Avalon stay for itself, we still won't have a > solution for commons problems like Avalon-Meta, for instance. So I still > thinking your attacking the wrong problem. A fork will not solve the avalon-meta problems either. However a seperate TLP for either Fortress or Merlin will at least ensure the projects are not killed off and that users are appropriately supported. I feel that keeping both in Avalon would be much better but we've tried and it just consistently isn't working. We are looking for a "WIN/WIN" solution but we shouldn't forget about "no deal", meaning that when the parties cannot come to an agreement which is a "win" for all involved they should not overlook the option of simply "no deal." Hammett, what then is the real problem that I am missing? What is your solution to the situation? --- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
