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]

Reply via email to