What granularity do you think that should be allowable as commons codebases? Should we define the granularity as focus, as number of files, as committers or what?
Focus.
IMHO, size is not a concern for the 'commons' project. It's whether the sub-project meets the goals or not.
As I suggested earlier, I would perhaps like to see reuse of infrastructure for smaller components (be it mailing lists, CVS, etc). Once a larger community develops, then we can give it its own infrastructure.
For an example, see [EMAIL PROTECTED] - flood and the perl-framework 'share' the same infrastructure. Perhaps have a general [EMAIL PROTECTED] for these 'smaller' components. If requested, then components can have discrete infrastructure support. But, it's a royal PITA to create infrastructure for small stuff. I think commons is going to have a lot of smaller codebases than other projects mainly because reuse will be a prevailing factor.
I think this is separate from an 'incubator' - mainly, I think each PMC is responsible for the promotion of the communities. Moving it to an external group (i.e. incubator) doesn't solve anything in my world view. So, I remain very skeptical of the ASF incubator. -- justin
