> Ummm, we need to stop talking about "Oracle" as a corporate entity. > > Oracle is not a committer, and can never be a committer. If some of > the ADF volunteers get to work on the code on company time, that's > great. But, from our perspective, only the individuals are the > committers. Not "Oracle".
I know. You have made this point before and I agree with you. But right now the code belongs to Oracle (or at least that is my impression) and the people who we need to help refactor it are currently employed by Oracle. I am just acknowledging that fact. You are right though, the ADF team needs to stop functioning as employees of Oracle as far as Apache is concerned. Once the code is donated everyone needs to speak for themselves. The code will not belong to Oracle anymore. > Right now, I don't know how any of the ADF developers feel. To move > forward, we need to hear from the individual developers, who might > become committers some day. If this is going to be a situation where > one of the ADF developers can speak for the others, then we need to > stop this right now. We need each and every ADF developer to speak for > himself or herself. And we need to them to speak on the list, and no > where else. An excellent point. > We must continue to be clear that any communications about the ADF > donation must be over the mailing list or through the issue tracker. > We cannot have developers talking to each other off list and making > "ex parte" decisions. Everything must happen over the list so that > everyone knows what is going on. Yes, we have too much of this with Tobago and I think the results speak for themselves. We rushed it in and now nobody knows what to do with it besides the Tobago guys. We will resolve that issue eventually (and again - the Tobgao stuff is good stuff.) > But, right now, these discussions are academic because we don't have > access to the code. Once the snapshot is posted, and people have a > chance to review the donation, we can talk about next steps. I think this is one thing everyone can agree on. There is no "Open Source" without the "Source" ;-) > -Ted. Sean
