On 5/3/02 10:56 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 May 2002, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: > >> I'll iterate : the point isn't just for it to be OJB, but to put together a >> package of projects that want to do this. I think the only way for it to be >> a strong apache community is if it has a large amount of apache >> participation. The only way to do that is to get something else in there >> *other* than OJB, as my read of the dev list shows apache people to be a >> small minority. > > They _will_ be apache people. Of course they _will_ be apache people, but they _aren't_ now. That isn't a bad thing, a criticism or an insult. Just recognizing the reality. One of the requirements of bringing in a project is to have a champion, the point being (as I understand it) to help ensure smooth integration into the Apache/Jakarta community. Generally (not specifically in this case) you wouldn't (well, I wouldn't) want to bring in a group of people that didn't want to participate in the community as a whole. That's sourceforge, isn't it? That's all that I mean. > > I'm personally very uncomfortable with the term 'apache people' - > any commiter is IMHO an apache person. Costin, you misinterpreted what I was saying. Any committer is an apache person, because of the meritocratic process used to make those people committers, not because they can type 'cvs commit Foo.java' and the server accepts it. People participate and contribute, and they are then granted committer status by their peers in the community. Hypothetically speaking - and I empathize this to ensure that no one jumps to the wrong conclusion that this in any way has to do with the individuals associated with OBJ, as it doesn't - just granting CVS access makes someone a committer, but says nothing about if they are in any alignment with the goals and principles of the ASF. > Some with a big mouth, > some not. But all are equal as commiters in their project - > there is no hierarchy. Only the PMC, which thanks to Sam does act as it > should, like a 'secretary' or 'administrative' entity. We all agree with you Costin. There is no disagreement. > I'm also very unhappy with the xml/jakarta separation and > the balkanisation of apache - as well shown by the current > maven/forest/cocoon/centipede discussion, where even xml.apache.org > is affected by jakarta's NIH. > > So I'll be -1 ( as a jakarta commiter - my vote obviously > doesn't count for that ) on another apache.org fragmentation. Really? The point, as I see it, is simply to help organize the greater Apache community by subject of interest. Stretching your argument to an absurd conclusion, if we eliminated all general@*.apache.org and made a single [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, it would quickly become useless as people perceive "noise" differently. People have different interests. I am sure that there are httpd people that are interested in what's going on in Jakarta, but not *all* of them.... I personally adore some of the projects in XML-land, but don't want to be a part of their general@ list... -- 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]>
