On 4/8/06, Andrew C. Oliver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Henri Yandell wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote: > > > >> -1 on these points > >> > >> 1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator. All > >> new projects must go through the incubator and endure. Commons > >> sandbox was created prior to the incubator. > > > > Nope, all new communities must go through the incubator, not all new > > projects (well, components). > > So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go through > the incubator just YOUR > incubator. > > Basically "misery loves company" so I think if the same sin buys me > purgatory, I'd like to see you there. Even if you call your project a > component.
So, if i have an idea for a new "group of code" (avoiding component vs project terminology for the moment) that would reasonably fit within the jakarta mission (whatever you think that might be), you think i should have to go through the incubator to start developing it? sounds like a great plan to shut down innovation from within the jakarta community or else force it to go underground and hide out within existing "groups of code". maybe i'm wrong on this, but i always understood the incubation process to be for bringing in outside groups-of-code/communities-of-developers into the ASF. If some Jakarta developers want to try and start a new group-of-code that would fit in Jakarta, a sandbox seems like a great place to play around with it and develop interest. If, on the other hand, i've been developing some group-of-code over at sourceforge, with oversight and community happening there, and at some later point i want to bring that into Jakarta, then incubation makes perfect sense to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
