On 3/5/06, Stephen Colebourne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Henri Yandell wrote: > > 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. > > It just seem to me to be impossible to imagine a commons-betwixt > developer caring about velocity-tools, or a taglibs-foo developer caring > about bcel. There is no community in common. > > In commons we care about a broad range of different projects. But the > degree to which we care about components other than our own has reduced > over time (roughly inverse proportional to the number of components). > > So yes, in the past I was gung-ho about commons taking over the whole of > Jakarta. Now I recognise commons can barely manage itself, let alone any > more projects. Size matters.
Yes, it does, and I think it's really important that we recognise that. Those of us who've been around since the inception of Commons, in particular, will hear the ring of truth in Stephen's words. Jakarta Commons was a much more cohesive and vibrant community in the early days, and there were indeed more committers per component, on average, than we have today. Now, while Commons has been growing like topsy, Jakarta as a whole has been shrinking, with several subprojects graduating into their own TLPs. That has been good for Jakarta, and for those subprojects. There's not much left that could logically go TLP, so we need to deal with what's left. I agree with Stephen's comments above that forcing everything that's left into a single group doesn't make sense. They really are different, and we should recognise that. (In fact, commons often behaves as multiple communities already. Its > natural and organic. I'm embracing it by proposing Jakarta Language > Components.) And I believe that is the way forward, especially for Commons. HttpClient blazed a path, and now we have Jakarta HTTP Components. We're about to create Jakarta Web Components, which will acquire pieces from Commons and Taglibs. So it makes perfect sense to take the group of components related to extending the Java language and form Jakarta Language Components out of that. The end result will be smaller, more cohesive, more vibrant communities than we have today. It's hard to imagine why that would be a bad thing! -- Martin Cooper At some point a recognition needs to occur that hierarchy is not evil. > We are all developers. We group things into hierarchies naturally. If > you flattened all the turbine components on the home page of jakarta all > you'd be doing is forcing the reader to group them. The turbine > components will always 'belong to' Turbine. > > > In summary, I believe we are many communities, not one. What unites us > is our size, in that each individual community is too small to stand > alone as a TLP. There is the *potential* to build a cross-Jakarta > community in *addition* to our smaller communities, but it requires care > and nurturing. Perhaps a single jakarta-user ML, or a forum are the > places to start. > > Stephen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
