Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository (was:primary
From: Conor MacNeill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as it's scope. Hi Dion, Your subject got my attention :-) Is there an Ant PMC issue here? We're Nope, no ant pmc issue from me. certainly open to working with other projects within Apache and beyond. Is Ant's scope statement preventing the Maven developers from working on an Apache jar repository with Ant? Am I missing something? Nope, you're not missing something. Noel just asked in passing why Maven and Ant aren't under the same PMC. -- dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting Blog: http://www.freeroller.net/page/dion/Weblog Work: http://www.multitask.com.au - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Noel Bergman writes: I like the idea of a central repository. It would simplify the issue by centralizing maintenance of jars and licenses. I just want to know how it is going to operate. A joint operation between Ant and Maven? Infrastructure? [I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related projects under a single PMC] Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as it's scope. Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to organize the software that we [the ASF] produce. Existing charters shouldn't get in the way of What Is Right. What Is Right ? So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? Cheers, -g -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
Jason van Zyl wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related projects under a single PMC] Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as it's scope. Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to organize the software that we [the ASF] produce. Existing charters shouldn't get in the way of What Is Right. What Is Right ? So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? The board changes things like scope based on resolutions provided to it. If the committers to Ant and Maven wanted to cooperate, then a joint proposal could be authored for consideration by the board. The idea of such committer initiated proposals do not concern me, unless such proposals attempt to establish responsibility for items that are within the scope of other, existing projects. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:28, Sam Ruby wrote: Jason van Zyl wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related projects under a single PMC] Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as it's scope. Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to organize the software that we [the ASF] produce. Existing charters shouldn't get in the way of What Is Right. What Is Right ? So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? The board changes things like scope based on resolutions provided to it. If the committers to Ant and Maven wanted to cooperate, then a joint proposal could be authored for consideration by the board. The idea of such committer initiated proposals do not concern me, unless such proposals attempt to establish responsibility for items that are within the scope of other, existing projects. Oh, you mean like the Avalon resolution which cross-cuts several other projects like Turbine and Struts. That one didn't seem to bother you. Don't make vague assertions when it's your personal agenda here Sam that's driving the cart. Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with the Maven system. But again those didn't really bother you either. But Maven's does. Or how about we add an addendum where the project has to have decent code and some _tests_ and actual users. That would pretty leave Maven standing by itself. It is not for you to personally decide who and who shouldn't work together because that's what's happening and that's complete bullshit. I know the board relies on you for their primary source information with anything to do with Jakarta and I think the time has come for you to be called on stacking the deck when what occurs doesn't line up with your little vision of how OSS should work. It is soley up the project participants to decide who they want to work with. Not you. I hope for your sake that you adhere to your word when you said you would abstain from the vote on Maven's PMC if there was a conflict of interest because there is a conflict of interest. And if you reply to this don't exerpt the bits you don't like as you usually do. - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:43, Jason van Zyl wrote: Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with the Maven system. But again those didn't really bother you either. But Maven's does. Or how about we add an addendum where the project has to have decent code and some _tests_ and actual users. That would pretty leave Maven standing by itself. I'll qualify this as I'm didn't intend to lump Ant in here. I'm specifically talking about Gump, Centipede and Ruper which as far as I'm concerned are an embarassment and Maven developers should not be forced into working with bodies of code we feel are not very good. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository (was: primary distribution location))
Conor, I could be wrong, but I don't believe that Dion was refering to the repository; rather he was commenting in response to my aside regarding Ant and Maven: On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:48:42PM +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Noel Bergman writes: I like the idea of a central repository. It would simplify the issue by centralizing maintenance of jars and licenses. I just want to know how it is going to operate. A joint operation between Ant and Maven? Infrastructure? [I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related projects under a single PMC] Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as it's scope. Jason's reply to Greg Stein, where Greg quoted the entire antecedent, and Jason just quoted my aside, lends further weight to my belief that the discussion was about the projects and not the repository. I understand some of the reasons why they aren't one project, but they are clearly in the same space. I've heard Maven refered to as the Ant v2 that will never happen, indicating a perception of some people as to how the projects relate. That naturally raises, at least in the mind of users, the question of cooperation and co-development of those two related projects. Is there an Ant PMC issue here? I wouldn't phrase it quite that way, but as long as the question is on the table: why aren't Ant and Maven two related projects under a single PMC? And what is underlying Jason's emotional response to that idea? --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 10:54, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jason, [I won't even get into the question of why those two can't be related projects under a single PMC] Read the Ant missionit specifically states the Ant build system as it's scope. Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to organize the software that we [the ASF] produce. So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? I perceived Greg's comment as saying that if Ant and Maven wanted to cooperate under a PMC, that the Board could change the scope of the PC charter. Why is this frightening to you? Because this is not what's happening. Sam is trying to force a collalition because of some sense of Rightness. We would like to be left alone and if a natural level of cooperation emerges in time so be it. But it shouldn't be dictated from the start which is the impression I'm getting. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
Jason, I am the one who raised the issue about Ant and Maven. I have made the observation before. Dion said that it was the Ant PMC that was in the way. Greg Stein replied that the Ant charter could be changed if that was the only issue. You jumped down Greg's throat about the Board taking away project self-determination. Sam replied that you had misinterpreted Greg's comments. So you jumped down Sam's throat with what appears to be an assault based upon prior context, because it certainly cannot be inferred from what Sam said to you this morning. Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never actually answered the question. What you did say was that: I'll qualify this as I'm didn't intend to lump Ant in here. I'm specifically talking about Gump, Centipede and Ruper which as far as I'm concerned are an embarassment and Maven developers should not be forced into working with bodies of code we feel are not very good. Well, I didn't ask about Gump, Centipede or Ruper. I asked about Ant and Maven. Start there. And as far as I'm concerned, if Build Project X sucks (a logical antecedent for the sake of discussion), then an Ant/Maven PMC could resolve that by correction/replacement as part of their on-going development. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Jason, I am the one who raised the issue about Ant and Maven. I have made the observation before. Dion said that it was the Ant PMC that was in the way. Greg Stein replied that the Ant charter could be changed if that was the only issue. You jumped down Greg's throat about the Board taking away project self-determination. Sam replied that you had misinterpreted Greg's comments. So you jumped down Sam's throat with what appears to be an assault based upon prior context, because it certainly cannot be inferred from what Sam said to you this morning. My comments cannot be misinterpreted. My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board in their relationship with Sam. I'm definitely trying to draw out into the open how things work. I don't get the feeling in this case project self determination is winning out because it's clashing with Sam's philosophy. Some of my comments include bits of other conversations which I am trying to draw into this one. Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never actually answered the question. I just answered it in another email. What you did say was that: I'll qualify this as I'm didn't intend to lump Ant in here. I'm specifically talking about Gump, Centipede and Ruper which as far as I'm concerned are an embarassment and Maven developers should not be forced into working with bodies of code we feel are not very good. Well, I didn't ask about Gump, Centipede or Ruper. I asked about Ant and Maven. Start there. And as far as I'm concerned, if Build Project X sucks (a logical antecedent for the sake of discussion), then an Ant/Maven PMC could resolve that by correction/replacement as part of their on-going development. I don't feel that the grouping of the two projects would necessarily make a better anything. Ant is currently on its own, and Maven has remained on its own. If a natural level of cooperation is going to occur it's not going to matter if we are grouped under the same PMC or not. Just as James as separated from Avalon, your level of cooperation will probably continue on the same path it always did. Doesn't matter where your projects are or if you are governed by the same PMC or not. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never actually answered the question. To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern? If we compete head-on with Ant why is that a concern? If we compete head-on with Centipede and it's satellite of related projects what's the concern? If we don't want to use Gump or talk to any of the Centipede so what? Compete with us! You cannot force relationships between groups when the desire to do so does not emanate in mutual proportion from both parties. We don't want to grouped under the same PMC as Ant. How's that? We want to go alone and I think we've done a pretty decent job so far. If we falter and require, desire or ask for help later on than we can do so. If we desire to collaborate or merge with other projects than we can do so. Give each project its own space and let the network of interaction form of its own accord. If it is easy to shuffle PMCs and alliances then let it occur when there is reason too. All I and any of the Maven developers want to do is try to make it better. But from day one I have had nothing but pressure from Sam Ruby. Starting from him asking me to use a huge mess of an xslt transformed gob of XML as the model for Maven to using Gump as tool of coercion to force unnatural paths of evolutuion. I ignored the first request and I continue to ignore gump because anything not taking the project into primary consideration won't work. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
From: Noel J. Bergman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I didn't ask about Gump, Centipede or Ruper. I asked about Ant and Maven. Start there. And as far as I'm concerned, if Build Project X sucks (a logical antecedent for the sake of discussion), then an Ant/Maven PMC could resolve that by correction/replacement as part of their on-going development. I thought the whole reason that Ant, Avalon, Cocoon, James et al moved top level (out of Jakarta) was to get rid of top level umbrella PMCs so that each project has its own PMC. This is all Maven is trying to do. Any kinds of integration/merging is an internal decision for the Ant and Maven communities isn't it? I see Ant/Maven integration as a totally separate issue from who makes up the PMC to look after the Maven project. I don't see why why we'd need another top level PMC looking after both Ant and Maven as they are separate projects afterall. James --- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
I must stay that I find this entire exchange bewildering. I have provided infrastrure support for Maven and an occasional patch here and there. When asked about either Maven becoming a top level project or leaving the ASF entirely, I provided what I thought were helpful answers. I welcomed Jason as a committer to Alexandria (where Gump was at the time, and Maven initially formed). I supported his movement of Maven from Alexandria to Turbine. And now I have indicated that I will abstain when the actual board vote is held on Maven becoming a top level project. - Sam Ruby Jason van Zyl wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 11:02, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never actually answered the question. To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern? If we compete head-on with Ant why is that a concern? If we compete head-on with Centipede and it's satellite of related projects what's the concern? If we don't want to use Gump or talk to any of the Centipede so what? Compete with us! You cannot force relationships between groups when the desire to do so does not emanate in mutual proportion from both parties. We don't want to grouped under the same PMC as Ant. How's that? We want to go alone and I think we've done a pretty decent job so far. If we falter and require, desire or ask for help later on than we can do so. If we desire to collaborate or merge with other projects than we can do so. Give each project its own space and let the network of interaction form of its own accord. If it is easy to shuffle PMCs and alliances then let it occur when there is reason too. All I and any of the Maven developers want to do is try to make it better. But from day one I have had nothing but pressure from Sam Ruby. Starting from him asking me to use a huge mess of an xslt transformed gob of XML as the model for Maven to using Gump as tool of coercion to force unnatural paths of evolutuion. I ignored the first request and I continue to ignore gump because anything not taking the project into primary consideration won't work. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote: So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? I am not sure where you've got that impression from; and I hope it is not based on anything happening within the ASF - virtually all projects and committer groups actively drive their own destinies; and draft their own charters and define their own scope. That does not mean that the board, or other community figures, occasionally help out and make suggestions - but by and large things are driven directly by comitters - which by and large need little help in communicating and coordinating. I've not seen anything else. DW - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote: Because this is not what's happening. Sam is trying to force a collalition because of some sense of Rightness. We would like to be left alone and if a natural level of cooperation emerges in time so be it. But it shouldn't be dictated from the start which is the impression I'm getting. I am not sure why you are jumping at specifically Sam's throath. At more than one occasion has he offered to abstain from voiting in cases like this. Most of this thread seems to be driven my a very carefully worded remark from Noel - who rightfully pointed out that there is a fair amounth of overlap in the jar repository activities, the ant building tool and the Maven building tool. And that perhaps some sort of coordination or collaboration would be good for everyone - and eventually beneficial for the whole ASF community. A board can help in a coordinating role to make these things happen. If Sam is suggesting ways for groups to work together - then I think that is good - and valuable. It reminds me of a dutch expression for which I do not know the US equivalent - such as the trust of the host is in his guests - for so much can he trust his guests. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 12:19, Dirk-Willem van Gulik wrote: On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote: So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? I am not sure where you've got that impression from; and I hope it is not based on anything happening within the ASF - virtually all projects and committer groups actively drive their own destinies; and draft their own charters and define their own scope. Cool, that's all I wanted to hear. That does not mean that the board, or other community figures, occasionally help out and make suggestions - but by and large things are driven directly by comitters - which by and large need little help in communicating and coordinating. I've not seen anything else. DW - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote: If we compete head-on with Ant why is that a concern? No and yes - in that order. Short term, propably not; long term - seems a waste of resources; espcially if you are not competing exactly head to head but slightly diverse into different areas. Which then do not connect as well as they could. But then again - short term it is propably good to see some competition to figure out what works in a quicker paced social environment. But longer term - a lot of energy may go to waste. We don't want to grouped under the same PMC as Ant. How's that? Now that was never the suggestion - interesting notion :-) But you folks all do want to be grouped under one Apache banner - now what does that then mean ? Ultimately where does one see the -whole- of the ASF to slowly go towards; or if that is too large a question - most of the java code. Is there any synergy - or is the most we can hope for a 'sourceforge' which a little more license sanity and peer controlled commit ? I think synergy is worth aiming for; reinventing the wheel (and mainting it) in several places is propably not worth it in the long run. Dw. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
It reminds me of a dutch expression for which I do not know the US equivalent - such as the trust of the host is in his guests - for so much can he trust his guests. Actually just found Ill doers are ill deemers or better perhaps Evil dooers are evil dreaders. Not sure if it is exactly right do - seems to start too much on the back side. Dw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On 26 Feb 2003, Jason van Zyl wrote: Since I am the one who asked why Ant and Maven aren't related projects under a PMC, you might was well yell at me for having the temerity to ask a rather obvious question. But for all of your railing this morning, you never actually answered the question. To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern? If we compete head-on with Ant why is that a concern? If we compete head-on with Centipede and it's satellite of related projects what's the concern? If we don't want to use Gump or talk to any of the Centipede so what? Compete with us! You cannot force relationships between groups when the desire to do so does not emanate in mutual proportion from both parties. I have no problem with maven doing whatever it pleases. The subject of this thread was about the jar repository on daedalus - and about who will oversee it. Maven can choose to not participate - but it can't choose to put it under its charter. I see no problem if Ant, Gump, Centipede cooperate on the jar repository - and maven doesn't. AFAIK Gump and Centipede does not compete with ant or with each other - quite the contrary. If maven wants to compete with ant or gump - that's great, competition is a good way to improve. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 09:46:16AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 09:34, Greg Stein wrote: ... Bah. The Board can easily change the scope if there are better ways to organize the software that we [the ASF] produce. Existing charters shouldn't get in the way of What Is Right. What Is Right ? So that's going to be the board deciding what is right? What project's themselves want is not right enough? That is frightening. What happened to project self direction/determination? People have said this in followups, but I'll specifically clarify my intent. If the projects at the ASF are hampered by their charters from doing the right thing, then they can simple ask the Board to get them changed. It is an easy process for the Board. There is no reason for you to suspect anything wonky from me, and your attitude towards my email is quite bewildering. To be honest, your response and the rest of the followups don't sit well with me at all. The Board exists to help projects in their work. We exist to protect the ASF to ensure that it will continue to exist, to help projects. Our intent is to let projects do whatever they feel is right and correct, subject to the constraints of the operation of the ASF and to what we feel may be injurious to the overall health of the ASF. I do think you're unfairly calling the Board a tool of Sam. Speaking for myself, that is a negative input to my own decision-making process. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
Costin Manolache wrote: I see no problem if Ant, Gump, Centipede cooperate on the jar repository - and maven doesn't. uhm, I would like to see all of the above and the rest of us cooperate on this thing. The value of everyone's work on setting up and maintaining such a repo decreases rapidly with decrease of support in the actual tools used for interfacing with the repo. I for one don't feel like having to maintain multiple repos. But OTOH, I don't feel like spending more energy arguing than it would take to set up those multiple repos. cheers, - Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:43:05AM -0500, Jason van Zyl wrote: ... Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with the Maven system. And the Board already told Cocoon that it did not like that tautology. For the Cocoon case, the Board was comfortable in creating the PMC and letting them get started, with the caveat that they must submit a refined charter to the Board. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
I think synergy is worth aiming for; reinventing the wheel (and mainting it) in several places is propably not worth it in the long run. That's my core philosophy of software development. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
Greg Stein wrote: The Board exists to help projects in their work. We exist to protect the ASF to ensure that it will continue to exist, to help projects. Our intent is to let projects do whatever they feel is right and correct, subject to the constraints of the operation of the ASF and to what we feel may be injurious to the overall health of the ASF. my opinion: the board peeps are doing pretty well. For sure, they've helped out avalon in an admirable way. Enough slamming the board already: you guys rock! Big well-deserved thank you. enough posts from me for the day. (I'm starting to compare myself to Andy :D) cheers! - Leo PS: sorry for all the warm fuzziness. I ate too much chocolate. PPS: the relevant dutch saying: Hoge bomen vangen veel wind. I'll leave it to Dirk to translate. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
Leo Simons wrote: But OTOH, I don't feel like spending more energy arguing than it would take to set up those multiple repos. Maybe this is a bikeshed and some one should just do it. However I do feel the Apache Jar Repository is going to be a very popular bike shed. So some planning is waranted. cheers, - Leo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Nick Chalko Show me the code. Centipede Ant + autodownloadable build plugins + needed jars autodownload. http://krysalis.org/centipede - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
okey, this ticked my bogometer. Jason van Zyl wrote: My comments cannot be misinterpreted. an interesting position. :-) My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board in their relationship with Sam. indeed: your observations. subjective opinion, in other words, not the one true reality. I'm definitely trying to draw out into the open how things work. so far you're not doing a very good job, because you seem to be hitting very wide of the mark. to put it rather more bluntly, jason, don't try to tell *me* how i'm affected by something; it's not your place, nor are you competent to do so. (no-one is except myself.) saying that it 'appears to you' that something is affecting me a certain way, however, is perfectly acceptable. please sprinkle a few more 'imho's through your posts, because otherwise the wording doesn't seem to even imply them. as for the board taking sam as the sole source of input about things regarding jakarta: i'm sure a little reflection on your part will reveal that as hyperbole. if it were true, none of the other board members would be subscribed to and participating on all the jakarta mailing lists that we are. -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ Millennium hand and shrimp! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 14:49, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote: okey, this ticked my bogometer. Jason van Zyl wrote: My comments cannot be misinterpreted. an interesting position. :-) My observations relate strictly to the behaviour of the board in their relationship with Sam. indeed: your observations. subjective opinion, in other words, not the one true reality. I'm definitely trying to draw out into the open how things work. so far you're not doing a very good job, because you seem to be hitting very wide of the mark. to put it rather more bluntly, jason, don't try to tell *me* how i'm affected by something; it's not your place, nor are you competent to do so. (no-one is except myself.) I'm not picking lint out of belly button and weaving a story here. I take what I see on the board list and I did speak with on the phone for about 40 minutes so I have, even if limited, some idea of how you're affected. I'm not saying that it's a conspiracy I'm just pointing out that as busy as everyone is on the board it is not hard to imagine that there is a reliance on Sam for information. I'm not saying none of you don't think for yourselves on Java issues but that Sam's opinion carries a lot of weight and might possibly be taken as the sole source of information. I have no problem saying I'm wrong and now that board has given it's decision it's clear that I am. saying that it 'appears to you' that something is affecting me a certain way, however, is perfectly acceptable. please sprinkle a few more 'imho's through your posts, because otherwise the wording doesn't seem to even imply them. Fair enough. I have very few lessons in diplomacy. I can learn, eventually with a big enough stick. as for the board taking sam as the sole source of input about things regarding jakarta: i'm sure a little reflection on your part will reveal that as hyperbole. if it were true, none of the other board members would be subscribed to and participating on all the jakarta mailing lists that we are. IMHO, I would say that it is not hard to imagine the board not being heavily influenced by Sam's opinion. That being said things turned out differently than I expected and I will make an attempt to tone down my direct line of attack approach to things. -- jvz. Jason van Zyl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tambora.zenplex.org In short, man creates for himself a new religion of a rational and technical order to justify his work and to be justified in it. -- Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern? Well, I'm not entirely sure how wanting to be left alone fits into an atmosphere of collaboration and Community. If anything, my concern is greater now because of the attitude than it was yesterday because of the code. If we compete head-on with [project X] why is that a concern? You cannot force relationships between groups when the desire to do so does not emanate in mutual proportion from both parties. As a matter of fact, you can. We did that with CORBA v1 when we told DEC and Sun/HP that they had 90 days to submit a joint proposal that merged DEC's DII with Sun/HP's IDL. But that's besides the point. You have already indicated that there is a synergistic relationship between Maven and Ant, so the relationship appears to exist. Where is the missing mutuality? You keep raising other competing projects as points of discord. Personally, if they don't work well, I encourage you to complete and replace. We don't want to grouped under the same PMC as Ant. How's that? Why not? Just as James as separated from Avalon The semantic domain for Avalon is to provide a component model programming platform for application development. The semantic domain for James is messaging. They are not related at the semantic level. The same is not true of Ant and Maven. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
I thought the whole reason that Ant, Avalon, Cocoon, James et al moved top level (out of Jakarta) was to get rid of top level umbrella PMCs so that each project has its own PMC. James, As I understand it, the ASF is flattening the hierarchy, but I see top-level projects established around synergistic semantic domains, not code bases. Isn't that why the ASF Board established webservices.apache.org, and rejected the Cocoon charter? The fact that they would promote Cocoon in the absence of an acceptable charter is an extension of respect to that Community, showing the the Board is confident that they will return with a proper charter governing ... dynamic XML-based content serving, I would expect. This is all Maven is trying to do. Any kinds of integration/merging is an internal decision for the Ant and Maven communities isn't it? Remember, this started as a question. WHY aren't they under by a common TLP? No one said that the Board was, would, or should enforce it. But what came back was a series of attacks, which I found (and find) completely mystifying, and more troubling than the original perception of two projects that could build further synergy. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
All I'm getting out of these discussions is that we're capable of having long winded foodfights about turf. This is an important problem that needs to get solved. I wish that I were not starting to see this in a similar vein. With respect to the repository, and classpaths, I have proposed that Dion Gillard be selected to chair a Apache Repository (sub)-committee under the infrastructure PMC. That takes it out of any project's turf. I know Dion personally, and have discussed it with him. There is no question in my mind that he is capable of staying clear of the turf wars, and respecting each build tool equally, as well as the needs of developers. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:52, Noel J. Bergman wrote: To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern? Well, I'm not entirely sure how wanting to be left alone fits into an atmosphere of collaboration and Community. If anything, my concern is greater now because of the attitude than it was yesterday because of the code. Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other parts of Apache. Some community is good, that doesn't mean more community is better. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wednesday, February 26, 2003, at 12:53 PM, James Taylor wrote: On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 15:52, Noel J. Bergman wrote: To expand, I think ultimately all that matters is that a project be given the space it wants in an attempt to let it flourish. If the Maven developers want to be left entirely alone why is that a concern? Well, I'm not entirely sure how wanting to be left alone fits into an atmosphere of collaboration and Community. If anything, my concern is greater now because of the attitude than it was yesterday because of the code. Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other parts of Apache. Some community is good, that doesn't mean more community is better. I don't understand this attitude. The ASF shall not be a clique. What exactly is the problem here, is it a case of NIH* syndrome? Are there personality conflicts between individuals within these groups? Can we try to pin down what the real problems are here and try to fix them? -aaron * NIH == Not Invented Here - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
Jason van Zyl wrote: Or how about we make a tautalogical resolution like the Ant or Cocoon resolutions which got passed. I'm fine with changing the resolution to something like those of Ant or Cocoon: The Maven Project will deal with the Maven system. FYI, the ASF Board stated clearly that this 'recursive nature' of the Cocoon Resolution is a problem and that they expect the Cocoon PMC to fix this ASAP. -- Stefano Mazzocchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate [William of Ockham] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
James, Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other parts of Apache. No, I don't believe that we need to be all one community. There is relatively little in common between, for example, Tomcat and James. [Although I do want to see if Remy will spare some time to help us integrate org.apache.naming into James as well]. On the other hand, I do see considerable semantic overlap between Ant and Maven. And it isn't as if they would have one mailing list for the two of them. However, my comment: If anything, my concern is greater now because of the attitude than it was yesterday because of the code wasn't about the two communities. It was about the series of vitriolic attacks that sprang from my asking the question, some of which amounted to nothing more than gratuitous cheap shots unrelated to either Ant or Maven. --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Noel J. Bergman wrote: Do we really need to have one big community? We've fostered a tight knit community of maven developers, even if they are not so tight with other parts of Apache. No, I don't believe that we need to be all one community. There is relatively little in common between, for example, Tomcat and James. [Although I do want to see if Remy will spare some time to help us integrate org.apache.naming into James as well]. Well - James IMAP, POP, NNTP servers could benefit a bit from tomcat's low level server components. With tomcat5 moving more to a JMX-based model with less coupling - I'm pretty sure much more could become common. Of course, the servlet container and jsp part are orthogonal. Costin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ant PMC Issue (was: RE: [proposal] daedalus jar repository)
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:01:06PM -0500, Noel J. Bergman wrote: ... As I understand it, the ASF is flattening the hierarchy, but I see top-level projects established around synergistic semantic domains, not code bases. There is a bit of tension between those two, but generally: yes. There is a continuum between umbrella and per-codebase. We're shifting away from umbrella; will we ever reach *per* codebase? Not without additional infrastructure support tools(*). Isn't that why the ASF Board established webservices.apache.org, and rejected the Cocoon charter? The fact that they would promote Cocoon in the absence of an acceptable charter is an extension of respect to that Community, showing the the Board is confident that they will return with a proper charter governing ... dynamic XML-based content serving, I would expect. You hit the nail on the head. Yes, exactly: the Board was quite confident in its trust that Stefano and the rest of the PMC would iron this out. There was no reason to hold up the new PMC for what amounts to a correction in some text. This is all Maven is trying to do. Any kinds of integration/merging is an internal decision for the Ant and Maven communities isn't it? Remember, this started as a question. WHY aren't they under by a common TLP? No one said that the Board was, would, or should enforce it. Right. From the meeting this morning, the Board basically said, so what if they compete? But the Board *also* said, if they compete to the detriment of the ASF as a whole, then we would need to do something. [ where something starts with directing the PMCs to figure out what to do ] Cheers, -g (*) SourceCast has been referenced in the past, but I have to abstain on decisions surrounding its acceptance, and tread carefully when referring to it. [conflict of interest; especially if I use [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
