On 1 Jan 2005, at 11:52, Henri Yandell wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 27 Dec 2004, at 11:35, Torsten Curdt wrote:Noel J. Bergman wrote:
<snip>
There has been
some suggestion that they be cleaned up by migrating them to some other
domain to be mothballed. The code, web site, and mailing list archives
would be preserved, and could be restored at such time in the future when a
community might arise.Hmm... the question is whether we really *can* mothballing them. IMHO too many projects rely on them. It's an important piece of technology. At least bugfixes need to be applied. FWICS migration costs (e.g. to asm) are fairly high. There *are* people that have patches in the queue.
i would like to suggest again something that costin suggested a long while ago now: for mature sub-projects we remove the extra layer and organize them directly under jakarta. so rather than being run as sub-projects with their own separate committer lists, the jakarta community runs them directly.
Effectively I'm +1 on that. I think of it as hope that enough of the self-contained projects ask to move to TLP and then we promote Commons components to sub-project level and make CVS Jakarta-wide.
i'm not sure that moving commons components to sub-project level would be a good idea. IMHO it would be far better to leave them exactly as they currently are: components distributed by jakarta. i can see no benefits from designating them as sub-projects. even the name has become more than a little tainted.
Suggestions that they move into Commons is effectively an attempt to get this community feature.
yeh, thought that might be the case :)
commons seems to be working ok now and IMHO it'd be better to leave it alone...
So how should we do it under the assumption that everyone doesn't up for TLP? Do we add a jakarta-user and jakarta-dev mailing list that is the merger of N sub-projects and effectively another Commons, or just kill the N mailing-lists in favour of the commons lists and give CVS access to Commons committers to the N sub-projects?
the commons started out as an experiment. why not just start a new experiment?
the new experiment would not be a sub-project and not have any sub-project layer (in organizational terms). the only binding votes would be from jakarta pmc'ers and karma would be granted (upon request) to any jakarta committer who wished to contribute (by means of a status file).
i'd say leave the mailing lists for now (there are infrastructure implications) but let's give the mature sub-projects you listed earlier a choice: join the new experimental not-sub-project or move to TLP status.
i don't know how this will all work out in the longer term but it's closer to the preferred model than the mature sub-projects are now and so is a step in the right direction. maybe a little further along the process it'll be easier to see the best way forward from where we are then.
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
