Hi Reto, frankly, I find it a bit strange that your first involvement in the Marmotta community is concerned with whether we are ready to graduate or not. This puts your comments into a certain light, and your motivation questionable. Anyways, I will try to answer to your concerns:
2013/6/4 Reto Bachmann-Gmür <r...@apache.org> > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 03/06/13 16:25, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote: > > > >> In my understanding having active contributor in at least 3 > >> geographically and organisational distinct places is a prerequisite > >> for graduation. > >> > > > > Not to my knowledge - reference? It's *a* rule-of-thumb for judging the > > robust-ness to change of a (P)PMC but not policy or even universally > agreed. > > > > http://incubator.apache.org/guides/graduation.html#community says: > > The project is considered to have a diverse community when it is not highly > dependent on any single contributor (there are at least 3 legally > independent committers and there is no single company or entity that is > vital to the success of the project). > > So it's only about being legally dependent not geographically dispart. > As Andy said, this is a rule of thumb. As I said, there are already three different legal entities contributing to Marmotta. As we all said, we would anyways still like to wait a bit before graduation. Additionally, I'd like to remind you of a German saying: "do not throw stones when you are sitting in a house of glas". If I am looking at the Clerezza source code and commit logs, about 80% of the code is not only from a single legal entity, it is from a single person (you). Beyond that, the commit logs of the last months have exactly three different committers (who are of course from different legal entities), so your community is also not exactly very big. > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Sebastian Schaffert > <sschaff...@apache.org>wrote: > > also accept that there is some perceived competition between Clerezza and > > Marmotta, even though I personally think in reality the systems are very > > different and follow different philosophies and goals. > > > > I know that marmotta is quite different from the architecture (EJB vs. > OSGI) Marmotta is not using EJB. It is merely using the lightweight and easy-to-understand CDI part of Java EE and runs easily in Tomcat and Jetty without any further requirements. This was one of the design goals of the project (to be as lightweight as possible). Using OSGi on the other hand IMHO makes it as hard as possible for non-OSGi projects to make use of the software. > but I'm not sure about the distinct goal and philosophy. Looking at > the features on the marmotta start page they look quite similar. > Only because Clerezza changed its goal in the last months. If I remember correctly, the initial plan was to build a Semantic CMS. > (Transactions and versioning are only there as a concept in clerezza and > rules are not supported, but the goal seems similar). Transactions, versioning and rules are three of the major goals of Marmotta, and they are already implemented. If I remember the Clerezza data model correctly, transactions and versioning are not supported at all, not even conceptually (because you are building on the Java Collections API which is inherently non-transactional). Two main requirements for us is to be able to work with large amounts of data and to allow massively concurrent access to the data. This requires a thorough transaction support and a lot of emphasis on a lightweight model. As we already discussed previously, I don't see the data model of Clerezza being suitable for this. There's nothing wrong > with competition so we might even have identical goals. But where do you > see differences in philosophy and goals? > I refer you to the discussions we had on the Stanbol mailinglist, as well as to the topics I mentioned above (OSGi as complicated framework, emphasis on persistence and performance). > > > Additionally, the funding for at least 3 years of further development has > > been secured and there is a > > contractual commitment by Salzburg Research and other organisations to > > invest this money into the development of Marmotta (and Stanbol). > > > This is a good thing for the source but a bit questionable for the > community. How can a consensus based development and openness to new > contributors work if Salzburg Research has a contractual commitment to add > certain feature to the project? > By having explicitly included in the contract the rule that consensus about features that go into Marmotta needs to be reached in the community. This clause was actually a bit of a concern for the European Commission, but in the end I got it passed. Greetings, Sebastian
