On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> > I thought we reached a compromise after many weeks of emails and
> > I was happy that we were able to agree on something that would work for
> > all of us, and sudenly this morning we're back in a fury of emails and
> > with a proposal to change the wording - just a little bit.
>
> Yes, it was amazing. I was trying to stay out, but I see that the
> biggest problem I was trying to solve *was* the notion of release -
> having a place where people who *want* to release 'small things' can
> live.
Well, I am trying to stay out as well. Each main I send is the "last one".
> release and support, is an important one. And that 'sponsored by a
> Jakarta project' phrase could be interpreted to really change the
> meaning of commons - while it would get people from different projects
> collaborating, they would still have these 'hidden' gems that no one
> could easily find and use, other than the Jakarta projects involved.
Geir - if a group of people want to release a component in commons - they
are not affected in any way by the fact that a jakarata project can also
release components.
I understand your concern - but at least it will be one big step forward
compared with the today situation - the "hidden" gems will be in a common
place, clearly separated from the project and reusable ( and maybe
shared).
Not allowing projects to release standalone componets and requiring them
to get aproval from commons does change a lot in how agora will be
perceived.
> But the notion of 'release' in such an environment is sort of tenuous,
> right? If you moved out to a separate entity once ready, then it's even
> easier for more people to share and use, not just the dparticipating
> projects. They would still 'own' it.... it's just easier for others to
> find and use.
I agree. In time I hope most components will follow this path - but I
don't want this to be mandatory.
And the main reason is that forcing this through a commons vote will:
1. Promote the idea that the code in agora is "second class",
experimental, etc
2. Create tensions and conflicts. Commons are a very diverse group, with
many strong opinions and it seems inclined to arguments. Some components
may conflict with or duplicate existing components, etc.
Costin
