Hi Phil, On 6/23/06, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
With his permission, I am forwarding an excerpt from a recent post from Roy Fielding, in response to questions about a proposed "Security" TLP originating out of the XML project. The concerns he raises below all pretty much apply directly to Testing.
That post pretty much explain the umbrella issue; it would be nice to have it somewhere on Apache's site, so it can be used in other situations.
Could be the right approach here is to limit it to Cactus + Jmeter, or even have them each TLP separtately.
That was Hen's original idea, but it faded away as these projects didn't feel confident enough to have a TLP of their own (for instance, I'm pretty much the only active Cactus committer right now, and not that active; JMeter is being more active commmitter-wide, but they were not willing to be TLPed alone). OTOH, we had drawn the attention of more people - many of them current Jakarta PMC members, like Rahul, Dion and Yoav - once we pushed the testing TLP, so maybe the JMeter+Cactus TLP could be doable now, although it still requires some decisions/definitions (see below).
I think the key is really point 1. above as well as Roy's argument below about not claiming dominion over a topical area.
Ok, I agree. So, let's say we decide to promote Cactus+JMeter to a TLP of their own, but not the broad "testing.apache.org"; I have 3 questions: 1.What should it be named ? 2.What exactly do these 2 projects have in common so they can be grouped together? 3.Could the TLP accept more projects? What's the criteria? Here are my preliminary answers: 2.This is the crucial point and ca be the guide for 1 and 3. Consider the project originated from Jakarta, whose roots come from the Java in the server side, we could work on something related to "Java EE Testing" or "Server-side Java Testing". 1.I'm too bad on naming (JCacter? MetrusJ? :-). 3.My guess is that once 2 is answered, we would have a criteria for letting new projects be incorporated to the TLP.
Roy Fielding on 6/22:
A federation is simply an umbrella project with no significant responsibilities of its own -- all of its projects report directly to the board and simply view the federation as a communal thing. I think XML and Jakarta should already fall into that category. Starting one is just like starting a project, except that the purpose is limited to community/commons like things and not actual products. "
Please forgive my ignorance, but I didn't understand this conclusion: does it means we could have testing as a 'federation TLP'? Os does the federation concept would apply to the Cactus+JMeter project? []s, -- Felipe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
