My suggestion would be that David Sean Taylor remain the official Apache rep. Beyond that, I would like to be considered, however, I also understand that too many hands can make things complex. I also agree with Craig's point that restricting the EG to one pluto developer may hinder the development of the RI. His point about portlet developers being represented vs. portal vendors is also valid.
Thanks for reconsidering Stefan, if It would be helpful for you, perhaps active committers that are interested could throw their hat in the ring and then we could vote for one or two above and beyond DST. That said, maybe there aren't enough *active* committers to make that worthwhite ;) David On 12/5/05, Stefan Hepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Craig, > ok, fair, I'll accept nominations from active pluto developers, but it > would be nice if we would have one Apache official rep in the EG. > > Stefan > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > Like you Stefan, I have been doing a lot of multitasking lately. I > > have a one word correction to the response I sent this morning to your > > email. I have capitialized the correction below for emphasis (portlet > > vendors should be portal vendors). Sorry for the confusing wording. > > > > Here is the corrected message: > > > > Stefan, > > > > Thank you for your response. > > > > It would be a shame to limit EG membership to a single Pluto > > developer. Unlike portal vendor representatives, most active Pluto > > developers are independant entities and represent the portlet > > development community, which are the majority of JSR-168 users. It is > > important to have a stable and functional RI developed in parallel > > with the development of the JSR-286 spec. Having more than one active > > Pluto developers on the EG would facilitate that objective. After all, > > PORTAL vendors will be most interested in refactoring their > > implementations rather than developing a new RI. That is > > understandable. It is especially important to have more than one Pluto > > member on the EG since the mailing list could becomes private if a > > member objects to a public list (as you mentioned in your response to > > David Sean Taylor). > > > > I am not suggesting that all Pluto commiters be put on the EG, but > > that a few active commiters be invited. > > > > I hope you will reconsider your 'single Pluto representative on EG' > > suggestion. > > > > TIA > > /Craig > > > > > > > > > > *Stefan Hepper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* > > > > 12/01/2005 06:48 AM > > Please respond to > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > To > > Craig Doremus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > cc > > [email protected] > > Subject > > Re: JSR 286: Portlet Specification 2.0 (Stefan, please comment!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Craig, > > sorry, I was on vacation the last 5 weeks, getting my new house finished > > and am now trying to catch up with my mail... > > > > My goal is to have the JSR 286 RI developed by the pluto community, and > > yes, everyone can send comments, you don't need to be on the EG for > > that. I'll also try to get out early public drafts as soon as possible > > to give everyone the chance to comment and implement prototypes. > > > > Ulrich will also help to get the RI development done inside the pluto > > community. > > > > I would like to have the EG not too big in order to be effective, > > therefore I would suggest that the pluto community elects one member who > > will represent the pluto community in the JSR 286. What does everyone > > think of this? > > > > The WSRP spec should be out for public review in Jan. > > > > Stefan > > > > Craig Doremus wrote: > > > > > > > > Stefan (Hepper), can you comment on the involvement of Pluto Commiters > > > in the development of the Portlet 2.0 (JSR-286) RI? > > > > > > I imagine all the Pluto committers cannot be on the Expert Group, but > > > I'm sure that some of us (including me) want to be involved with > > > developing the new RI. > > > > > > Will we be able to contribute to the JSR-286 RI if we are not on the > > > Expert Group? > > > > > > We will also need to get access to the developing WSRP 2.0 spec since > > > the new Portlet spec will align closely with the new WSRP spec (very > > > good idea, IMHO!). But WSRP 2.0 seems to be still under wraps. Will we > > > be able to take a peak at WSRP 2.0 soon or get a pre-release preview? > > > > > > TIA > > > /Craig > > > > > > > > > Nick Lothian wrote: > > > > > >> (via http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=37818) > > >> > > >> Are any active committers on Pluto aware of JSR-286? > > >> > > >> I hadn't heard anything about it. > > >> > > >> One interesting point: > > >> > > >> 2.16 Please describe how the RI and TCK will de delivered, i.e. as > > >> part of a profile or platform edition, or stand-alone, or both. > > >> Include version information for the profile or platform in your > > >> answer. > > >> > > >> The RI will be implemented inside the open source project Pluto at > > >> Apache. > > >> > > >> Nick > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
