So the Sanselan discussion more broadly triggers a few thoughts in my mind, but this thread is not meant to be Sanselan specific.
Understanding that not all decisions are objective, I still haven't convinced myself that I have a reasonable set of somewhat objective criteria that I can iterate over in determining the suitability of codebases (and communities by association) proposed for addition to Commons. This is in turn about two viewpoints (assumed reasonable): * We want the Commons community to grow and prosper, we want Commons code to do new and interesting things * We want Commons to sustain growth and (a) not become too fragmented or (b) not become an umbrella In terms of growth, theres a couple of models and we haven't had many M&A style scenarios -- i.e. once seeded, we've more or less had organic growth with few exceptions. In terms of the Apache Incubator, there is a potential of having other podlings reach Sanselan's status-quo. With the existing metric we would be hard pressed to not accept any of those (which in turn leads to the concerns in the second bullet above). Another approach, for example, would be for interested Commons committers to actually engage with the podling community first, and then propose addition to Commons (i.e. instead of saying we'd like 3 committers working on the code, its 3 -- or 2 -- existing Commons committers interested/working on code). On unrelated notes (though some of this has come up elsewhere before) I'd prefer for all components old and new: * o.a.c packages * use of commons-parent, common-skin etc. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
