On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Martin Cooper wrote:
On 8/9/05, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/8/05, Rahul Akolkar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 8/8/05, robert burrell donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip/>
IMO the proposal can be finished off pretty quickly but i'm unsure about
the best way to handle the name issue. didn't seem to be any sort of a
consensus. opinions?
<snap/>
Is there any interest in resolving the name issue as mentioned below?
I think everyone's perception of the methodology used is key to a
swift resolution, so it'd be nice to flesh out what the method should
be.
Yes. We need to pick a name ASAP so that we can get the new subproject
off the ground with its own mailing lists, SVN repo, etc.
The problem is that the list of candidate names, as it is now, is
rather long, which could make for a somewhat messy vote. Therefore,
I'd like to propose removing some of those candidate names prior to a
vote:
* Remove anything that has "potential conflict". Let's just not go there.
* Remove League, Confederation and Bloc. I honestly don't think those
are serious names.
* I would also recommend removing Weblets, since this suggests a
uniformity of structure that simply won't be there.
That would still leave us with quite a few options to choose among.
+1.
Let's leave Jakarta out of the names. It's assumed. So in the acronym
example from Frank, it would be Apache Jakarta WP4J and not JWP4J.
The only real problem is with Frank's suggestion of Web Parts and
confusion over whether we'd be able to use the name; so let's get that
cleared up before having a vote.
Firstly, don't worry about the committership part Frank. I'm certain that
if you had a decently sized lump of code accepted, and wanted to continue
to maintain and enhance it and the code around, that we'll quickly
nominate committership and get it passed etc. There's doubt in that people
are involved etc, but I've never seen the community refuse to let someone
in who is actively doing work and wanting in.
I went through the same situation Frank is heading into a few years back.
I had a large lump of code, some good, some crap that I wanted to donate
into various Commons projects. Some was accepted, some was not. I'm pretty
certain that not all of javawebparts.sf.net will end up in Jakarta <name>.
Some of it will be code that you like Frank.
This means that you'll hit a point where Jakarta <name> will have some of
your best code, and the rest will be sitting in javawebparts and you'll
have to decide what to do with it. Do you keep copies of the Jakarta
<name> stuff (problematic)? Do you keep javawebparts as an addition to the
Jakarta <name> stuff (see http://www.osjava.org/genjava/)?
In either case, the name javawebparts will be confusing when compared to
Jakarta <name> if <name> = Web Parts. So you've three options I reckon:
1) Drop the code that doesn't make it in.
2) Have a different project name for the code that doesn't make it in.
3) Vote for something else :)
1+2 both involve deprecating the javawebparts stuff.
Hopefully none of that sounds too aggressive or anything; just trying to
make this nice and simple so Frank can make his decision and we can
include or not include Web Parts and WP4J as potential names.
Let's give Frank a couple of days, then call the vote depending on his
answer. (Lack of answer means they can't be in the options).
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
