Justin this is a good point you raise. Our preference would be that all performers be specified and developed via the distribution lists. However, if someone has developed a performer, on their own would it not be possible for them to contribute that to the project so that it can be further developed and evolve within the Apache framework? Perhaps they never intended to make such a contribution when the began writing it. In general you are correct we should be making suggestions about performers on the distribution list (as I have done on a number of occasions) and making decisions on whether they should be a part of the iota package. Of course anyone could develop a performer and make it open source on their own and share it with others outside the Apache framework. Justin what would the Apache Way be? Would it be that anyone wanting to contribute some pre-existing component proposes that on the distribution list and a vote is taken on a per component basis? Or would it be better to have the components exist outside the Apache framework - perhaps using a standard Apache 2.0 license?
If others has thoughts on this it would be great to hear them so we have a better collective understanding of the issues and we can propose and move forward with appropriate lines of action. Thanks -Tony > On Feb 11, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Justin Mclean <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > >> plus a number of components that we will upload that are complete. > > It possible I’m misunderstanding something here and if so apologies in > advance. > > Can I ask why this code is not being developed in the Apache GitHub repo? > > Any development of the code should take place in the open in the projects > Apache repo, not just uploaded to the repo once it is complete. > > Thanks, > Justin > >
