Hi all,
I think we're closer to agreement then is immediately
apparent. We seem to be battling one key set of
apparently opposing viewpoints:
1) Costin, Ignacio, etc. are concerned that the
Commons committers will incorrectly shoot down
legitimate components.
2) Craig, David, Gier, etc. believe that we need
oversight, or subprojects may introduce components
that don't meet the Commons charter.
Let's keep in mind that the core Commons committers
are _us_ (well, "we" :), and we'll be guiding the
evolution of this project. I don't think any of us
are going to reject a component that we don't
understand or that is only used by one subproject. I
myself would entertain any good contribution, even if
it was sponsored by _no_ subproject.
I think we can expect that Commons committers will
only exercise their veto if a component is not
designed for reuse, or a component is inextricably
tied to a large external framework, or the component
deviates from the Commons charter in some other
significant way. After all, like it or not we do have
a charter, and somebody has to make sure we follow it.
Some Commons components may be promoted from the
sandbox to Commons. Others, if they display
sufficient promise and maturity, may be able to bypass
the sandbox entirely. And once the component is
accepted into Commons, so are the contributors, and
they can continue to guide its destiny. This is very,
very similar to the way Taglibs has evolved, and so
far I think it's been a success.
- Morgan
=====
Morgan Delagrange
Britannica.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
