On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 22:50 -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > Rahul Akolkar wrote: > > On 6/6/06, Felipe Leme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > <snip/> > >> > >> So, answering your question, yes, the project is supposed to support > >> libraries from another languages. In fact, the existence of such > >> libraries is an argument for the TLP creation; besides the existing > >> Cactus and JMeter, we have at least 3 sub-projects contenders (the 2 you > >> mentioned and one for testing HTML pages), 4 if we count DbUnit > >> (although this one will take more time due to the licenses > >> incompatibility). > >> > > <snap/> > > > > Yup, there clearly is developer/community interest towards the > > formation of this project. Plus, there is a chance to rejuvenate some > > existing projects by sheer proximity to newer projects with active > > developers (amongst other things). > > > > Per the umbrella concern, the question then becomes what -- if any -- > > are the mitigating factors that can address such a concern with > > regards to this proposal. Based on Hen's email, seems like the ball is > > still in the board's court -- as we wait for the next meeting -- so > > maybe its premature to discuss if we should be trying to address those > > comments yet? > I would also like to understand exactly what the problem is and what > mitigating steps may be possible. In particular, I would very much > appreciate a definition of "umbrella" that allows Geronimo, Logging, > Jakarta Commons, DB, XML, Web Services and Struts, but somehow > disallows Testing.
(this is the way i see the world and so is likely biased) the ASF runs on sub-minimal rules. most votes are subjective and not objective. the criteria applied are personal and evolve over time. past decisions are not revised to take account of changing opinions. there is no rule against umbrella projects and so no single consensus definition is needed. their is quite a diversity of opinions on umbrella nature amongst the members. (i won't give my opinions on umbrella nature now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and may be misleading.) the board is elected by the members and so reflects the opinions of the membership. there is a strong consensus that umbrella-ness is a warning sign. just as there isn't a single objective definition, there is no one definitive reason why members believe this. (again, i won't give my opinions now - they represent a minority viewpoint amongst the membership and so may be misleading.) recently (for various reasons) there has been a definite hardening of attitudes. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
