[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Depends on how do you define "closed to the public".
>
> Something can't get out of the sandbox on "it's own" - you can't just
> start something and then release it to public. I agree with that.
>
> But in the same way as a component can be released as result of a vote
> of library commiters ( who assume the responsibilty to maintain it and
> insure the quality ), it can be as well released by the result of a vote
> of another project.
Agreed.
But after they vote to release it, is the public going to be able to
download it separately?
Or is it only going to be available as part of the build for the
respective products using the codebase?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The goal is to keep the code in a common place so more projects
> can cooperate on it, and that's why we need a common repository where all
> projects have equal access.
Where this all break down for me is that subprojects are a workgroup
tasked to create and maintain a particular product. Committers can and
do work on multiple products. The focus needs to be on helping
* committers * cooperate regardless of what product they happen to be
working on.
The Commons model is designed so that volunteers can work together on a
package that can be used by more than one product. The difference
between this and Agora seems to be that subprojects are being promoted
to entities with some kind of a vote. I don't believe that this is wise.
The code belongs to the committers, who work together on products. We
need
to think in terms of committers who build products, and avoid
reinforcing the idea that Jakarta is a collection of competing tribes.
-Ted.
