On 5/15/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest
because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta.
I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about
that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues.
0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and
closure of the project?
+1. Our current system needs to change.
1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and
possibly general@)
+1. I like the idea of keeping general.
Effectively we're talking about the much vaunted yet failed to
materialize federation concepts. XML are ahead of us in this position;
they have one project left (Xindice) for which my advice is sending it
TLP and then all they will have left is a moribund PMC and the
federation work they've done. Which I think is much like the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] page I added a couple of years back (and removed not long
ago).
Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources
would be unacceptable to anyone.
We need to make sure it is self-maintaining to a large extent. The
DOAP stuff might be a way to go, though I think we would want to mix
it with branding and original content.
2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons
TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved)
Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the
jakarta==java remit.
Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or
maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step
up)
There's a huge tie between the portal (federation) idea and the
commons idea. Both exist as a span for the projects in their category.
I'd rather see two groups showing responsibility rather than lumping
it on the one PMC. So -1 on this one.
3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any
of the alternative options acceptable?
- Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand
Maybe not so bad. It's a good start to being [EMAIL PROTECTED] as far as
committers/members go. We could extend it such that it's very open to
people being added. For example; there'd be no point having a Jakarta
committer without them being on the PMC.
- Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it)
-1. StackOverflow.
- Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers
-1. StackOverflow.
x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board?
I'm very tempted to ask for opinions on the federation idea on behalf
of both Jakarta and XML as they're both hitting the point of needing
to figure out how we would organize it. I think that part is
definitely on the shoulders of the board/members.
If we end up with code that is in maintenance (Slide, ECS, Alexandria,
JServ, whatever); are we suggesting the Jakarta PMC would handle it or
some other random group?
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
