On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Martin Cooper wrote: > > > On 3/5/06, Henri Yandell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> All (90%?) of the navel gazing comes down to one binary question. > Should > >> Jakarta be a community, or a community of communities. Are we Jakarta > >> committers, or ORO committers. > > > > > > It should be what it is. As I just wrote in another message (on > commons-dev, > > I think), you can't make a community into something other than what it > has > > grown into organically. > > Agreed - that's why I'm not JFDI as one piece of advice I've received > suggests. I'm also trying to avoid it being manipulation - I could have > pushed each item one at a time in most-likely-to-be-accepted order. That > would have been a lot easier, but too machiavellian. > > Least I'm trying to not be doing that :) Thus emails about long term ideas > etc. More confusing to the community, but less manipulative. > > >> I'm not tied to any of the things I'm suggesting - except the strong > >> belief that Jakarta as a community of communities cannot work. So I'm > >> definitely in favour of more shared site and less individual site - I'm > in > >> favour of a flat Jakarta, both in terms of SVN acces and not allowing > >> subprojects of subprojects (ie: Jakarta Velocity-DVSL, not Jakarta > >> Velocity DVSL); I'm in favour of sharing the decisions - rather than > >> having a slice of the PMC informing the main PMC of their decision. > >> > >> Agreed - most/all of this will seem backwards if someone takes the view > of > >> community of communities as opposed to single community. > > > > > > And there you have the nub of my objections to all this manipulation of > > communities. > > Stepping further back than the community question - do you think the > current Jakarta community of communities is healthy?
Not completely, no. I don't follow all the pieces as closely as I believe you do, but gangrene has definitely set in in places. Taglibs is the example I'm most familiar with, but I believe that can be resolved by amputating the truly dead limbs and revitalising the remainder as part of the (eventually, I hope) forthcoming Jakarta Web Components subproject. (On the other hand, I suspect that part of the reason for the demise of Taglibs is because a lot fewer people are using JSP tags these days, having moved on to AJAX or JSF.) With many Jakarta subprojects having been around for some time, some of them are just more or less "done", which leads to quiet spots in the community. I think that's fine - we need to recognise that most software projects don't go on forever (even if it can seem otherwise, sometimes ;), and most developers don't work on the same projects all of their lives. When the conversation slows or comes to an end on subproject X, we shouldn't assume the community is then unhealthy. Maybe it's just "done", or people have moved on to a different technology, or whatever. Putting an old race horse out to pasture is a lot different than killing it. ;-) Do you think there > are ways that an umbrella (in the negative sense of the word) can continue > to grow (in health rather than size) within the ASF? In health, yes, and I think we're on that path. Shrinking in size and bringing the scale of subprojects closer together both help, and much of that has happened, with the big subprojects moving out to TLPs. Getting Web Components off the ground will also help. And in that same vein of collecting like components into Commons-ish sets, I believe that Stephen Colebourne's proposal for Jakarta Language Components would also help. Despite some pitfalls along the way, I believe the Commons model has worked well, and seeing that spread into Web Components and Language Components is great. -- Martin Cooper It's possible it's just me wanting to make the chair role a non-fulltime > job. > > Hen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
