On 5/3/02 2:55 AM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002 11:44, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >> On 5/2/02 6:33 PM, "Peter Donald" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> OJB deserves to be a peer to other projects alongside ant, avalon, struts >>> etc >> >> For future reference, can we quantify this 'deservation' of peerage? > > It should be size of developer community, size of codebase etc. Alternatively > you just have to be able to influence the people who vote. That's clear then :) > >> I don't know how big >> the OJB community is, where it's being used, etc. > > From what I hear (mainly from EJB peeps), OJB is all good and fairly popular. > If the torque people also praise it then I figure it must be decent. I am sure it's great - I hear great things too. Just didn't know. > >> (I know Poolman's is >> huge, but that doesn't seem to matter - the # of developers seems to be the >> gating factor...) > > The ability to support/grow a community would be biggest factor IMO. The > larger the number of developers the greater the ability to grow a community. Does the community size matter in that equation, or is that just a side product? This is an aside - the reason I ask is that poolman, which has a very large user base, intentionally had an very small developer base because the author recognized the risks inherent in the GPL, so kept it close. I don't feel strongly about involving Poolman in this db.*.org discussion - I would rather see it here at Apache, but it's just fine where it is now. > However if the codebase is too small or too specialized or too good then it > will never attract community. If it is a platform rather than a product that > is also key to its success. > >>> So much like xml.apache.org deals with XML, db.apache.org will deal >>> with databases (maybe even collaborate with xml.apache.org/xindice in >>> future). >> >> This would be great, and would certainly satisfy the 'needs' that motivate >> me to propose this. >> >> However, we have a bit of chicken and egg to deal with. We could go to the >> Apache board and ask to start it, hoping that something stumbles in, or >> take a small pause with OJB and try to work out a proposal, bundling >> several things together to make a new Apache subproject. It would make a >> stronger proposal. > > It comes down to the OJB committers. If they want to do it then there is very > little standing in the way. I doubt the board would object which means that > there just needs to be some volunteers from other apache projects to help set > it all up. Mainly this means making sure the Apache "spirit" is instilled in > the new PMC, helping with infrastructure (gump, website etc) and advertising. > > Overtime it may also mean advocacy (like getting cooperation from ozone and > xindice, etc or even bringing them to project). And dont forget shameless > self promotion. > > In the end I think it would be best move for OJB group (much better awareness > and promotion and in the end development) however it comes down to whether > they want to do it and if there is enough Apache volunteers to get it going. Yes - I agree. It should be totally up to them - like I said, if they don't want to do that and just be jakarta, that's fine. I support that 100%. I just thought it was an interesting thing to try to push forward. I would bet that inertia being what it is, once the choice is made, that will be it. It's easier in the beginning... I have no idea why they want to move here, but to me, being the 'marquee' project in a new Apache subproject has incredible upside for a project trying to establish 'mindshare' in what seems to be a confusing vertical. No doubt, being part of Jakarta is too. But I would bet that in the industry "Apache creates new subproject" is going to get a lot more attention than "XXX joins Jakarta". And having other useful things surrounding it makes it even more of a win. > >> 2) We see if any parts of Jakarta are willing to volunteer to join. There >> is Torque, parts of avalon, commons dbcp. Must be more... > > I would not bother with the parts from commons or avalon at this stage. Torque > could be interesting though, as would poolman ;) I know you are an Avalon-er, but I thought there was some interest mentioned. Torque would be interesting, but it's really up to them. They haven't moved it to commons yet either. I would be very interested in moving poolman to 'the new thing', as that would bring lots of people to take a look, I suspect, as it's also pretty well known. Again, this isn't at all about poolman - just throwing it in there as a possible supporting resource and to commit myself to involvement. > >> Is this moving in the right direction? > > I think so. But it is up to someone volunteering to do the legwork. Talk to > the OJB guys and see if they want to do so. Do the same to torque peeps. If > all is good then someone will need to help them set up PMC and do all the > infrastructure stuff. I thought I was volunteering. :) The only problem is that yours so far is the only public positive comment so far. I let it stew for a bit and will talk to OJB in the intrim, but if people don't see this as a good idea, then it very could might not be. > > If you need volunteers I will help integrating gump and also help with their > website but have no time for politics or coding on their stuff. That's great. > Or to put it simply if you want it done and OJB wants it done then it will get > done - otherwise it wont, simple as that really. -- Geir Magnusson Jr. Research & Development, Adeptra Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1-203-247-1713 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
