Morgan Delagrange wrote:
>
> 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.
['Geir' : you know the old rule - 'i' before 'e' except after 'c', or in
'neighbor' and 'weigh', when sounding line 'a', or in 'geir'. ;) ]
I came to the conclusion last night that it may be a little more subtle,
and that is it's the *release* issue. I think that it's clear that in
Agora, things could be freely developed and worked on w/o any say by the
'Commons committers', but the bone of contention seems limited entirely
to the release groundrules.
Further, it seems to be focused on weather or not a jakarta project can
'sponsor' a component for release, bypassing the commons committers.
> 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.
Right - I agree ( I will be careful about those multi-meaning +1's :)
I don't think a Jakarta project *should* sponsor - the actual committers
sponsor - they may be from multiple Jakarta projects, and that's good,
but not required...
>
> 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.
Yep
> 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.
Again - I think the commons committers should be reactive : they don't
proactively 'promote' anything out unless the people actually working on
the component want that to be so... right?
geir
--
Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Developing for the web? See http://jakarta.apache.org/velocity/
