ad dormant code: what about matured code? (Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
J Aaron Farr wrote: ... cut ... As for dormant code, leave it where it is. If we still have a few committers working on it and making releases occasionally, then we'd still need a functional PMC. Otherwise, if we get enough noise about a subproject, it can be revived (perhaps with help from the Incubator). ... cut ... There may be many reasons why a project turned dormant: no interest (dead technology), committers having gone astray, etc. One reason that may be special is a project which got developed, is used, but there is no reason to develop it further. If classifying a project as matured it still may need fixing of problems and/or enhancements over time, making it necessary to create a new distribution. The idea of putting a matured project into the incubator realm does not sound right to me. It would not be a project which needs to gain additional developers to grow, if it has become clear that it is matured. Or with other words: I would not expect a matured project to get out of an incubator, which (from the name) is probably meant to try out, interest, nurture new projects. Also morphing a matured project into a TLP seems not to be concludent to me (a TLP should be either an umbrella for other little active projects that belong somehow together, or be a project that gets actively developed for the foreseeable future and has a broad developer and user community). Case in question: the Beans Scripting Framework. Version 2.4.0 has gone Golden last fall and it is expected to be stable. There may be new engines that get developed for this Java scripting framework, but from todays perspective, there are no new features for 2.4.0 that can be foreseen. So 2.4.0 would be in matured mode, people are using it and maybe new Java developers take advantage of it. There is a new version (3.0) of BSF in beta, created according to the JSR-223 specs, implementing the official Java scripting framework in opensource under an Apache license, and can be deployed starting with Java 4. There are plans by ant to eventually test it againast the TCK. Now this version is in active development, but if everything goes well, it will become mature once it is officially released. Then this project would be in maintenance mode as well, mainly bug-fixing and supporting users will be necessary. Of course, if Sun's Java scripting framework gets enhanced, then these enhancements would probably be incoroportated into the future BSF 3.0. Unless there are already rules that mandate that projects that got developed to a point after which they go into maintenance mode need to go into the incubator, I would suggest to create a new classification for such projects. They should be named matured. Depending whether there are committers who maintain matured projects, they should be further qualified as maintained projects, or otherwise be put into an archive of unmaintained matured projects. ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thread has been more quiet than I expected. I thought so too. There are two points which I'd like to make from the things that have been said so far, 1/ From Ted H. Whenever we foster healthy communities that create great software, we will create another great brand. It's what we do. That's a really good point, and one which more than anything else has raised a doubt in my mind as to the benefit of retaining the Jakarta brand. 2/ It seems that we have a consensus forming around the idea that it would be worthwhile retaining some resources in a low-maintenance way. However its not clear where the ownership of these would lie. I like the idea that http://jakarta might aggregate news content from java projects. Differentiating itself from http://projects by being the source of news about apache java projects. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thread has been more quiet than I expected. Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's because we all think we know where this is inevitably going and we're just waiting for it all to settle out. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
My silence is because I think I made my preferred option quite clear way too many times. Mvgr, Martin Danny Angus wrote: On 5/21/07, J Aaron Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thread has been more quiet than I expected. Actually, thinking about it, perhaps that's because we all think we know where this is inevitably going and we're just waiting for it all to settle out. d. - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Hi Danny, Danny Angus wrote on Monday, May 21, 2007 10:47 AM: On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any attempt in any kind of direction has been vetoed down and for me it is pointless to bring the same arguments again in a new thread. Jorg, Searching through my mail I don't really see you advancing any arguments about the future of Jakarta. Perhaps you could consider repeating them for the benefit of those of us who didn't hear what you said? Well, I follow the discussion quite for a while and anything was already said or proposed by other people and I could not add something new. So I limited myself to vote. It would be sad if people who have an opinion choose not to express it in a thread explicity about the future of Jakarta on the pmc list just because it may have already been expressed in Commons dev or poi dev or wherever else. IMHO it does not help, repeating the same arguments. On the other hand if there really is the level of apathy which the inactivity in this thread hints at then the choices are pretty clear. So, here you do imply something ;-) But to recap, we had 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed So what's left in your opinion? I don't buy the Jakarta=Java-Portal solution, since I believe it fails the doing. Option 2 would have been my personal choice, since - we keep the brand - we state that we're Java centric - we wrap a greater community about matured/left-over/maintained only components Any Jakarta project that feels uneasy because it - has an isolated community - has a broader scope than Java should consider a TLP Option 3 from above was raised, because 2 did not make it and it would have forced the Jakarta left behind projects to make a real statement of their own. Now we're stuck to the status-quo and I see no way out of it anymore (sarcasmor should we try to start a vote on those issues in periodic times of 6 months unless one of it passes?/sarcasm). Out of ideas, Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Voting on releasing RC artificats as Final
Hi All For the 3.0 release of POI, we followed the advice on voting on artificats, the not the state of the tree. So, we used our ant script to produce RC artificats, signed them, and placed them on people.apache.org for review. After the vote, we renamed the files from -RC4- to -FINAL-, tweaked the filenames inside the .md5 files, and copied into /dist/. Two snags though: * we had to re-generate the maven pom, and re-sign it, as that holds the release version in it, which changed * we forgot that the .tar.gz and .zip files all have poi-3.0-rc4 as their base directory name, since the directory name is generated dynamically in build.xml What do other people do about this for their releases, when voting on artificats? Do you do each build as if it was -FINAL (so that gets embeded into all the directory names etc), then rename the artificats for voting, or something else? Thanks Nick - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Voting on releasing RC artificats as Final
For commons transaction I did exactly that. Create/sign the RC as if it was the final release, but only put it on temporary storage without notifying anyone external. IMHO a RC is not meant to check for remaining bugs, but rather to see if the distro looks ok, installs, etc. That means the RC is never actually released to the users. This is what betas or milestones are for. Disclaimer: Certainly not official. This is my personal way of making releases. Cheers Oliver 2007/5/21, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hi All For the 3.0 release of POI, we followed the advice on voting on artificats, the not the state of the tree. So, we used our ant script to produce RC artificats, signed them, and placed them on people.apache.org for review. After the vote, we renamed the files from -RC4- to -FINAL-, tweaked the filenames inside the .md5 files, and copied into /dist/. Two snags though: * we had to re-generate the maven pom, and re-sign it, as that holds the release version in it, which changed * we forgot that the .tar.gz and .zip files all have poi-3.0-rc4 as their base directory name, since the directory name is generated dynamically in build.xml What do other people do about this for their releases, when voting on artificats? Do you do each build as if it was -FINAL (so that gets embeded into all the directory names etc), then rename the artificats for voting, or something else? Thanks Nick - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed So what's left in your opinion? Work with the people who cast the deadlocking vetoes to resolve their issues and uncover a compromise which is acceptable to the majority. I'm not sure why 1/ is vetoed, unless this is related to the POI confusion over M$ IP. In which case POI TLP should remove that veto. 2/ commons TLP should resolve this 3/ veto was mainly detail around name and the wording of the resolution, no reason to suppose this won't be resolved. the proposal received -1's but the people who voted -1 should work with the community to get their concerns resolved, not simply block all progress. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Voting on releasing RC artificats as Final
Nick Burch wrote: What do other people do about this for their releases, when voting on artificats? Do you do each build as if it was -FINAL (so that gets embeded into all the directory names etc), then rename the artificats for voting, or something else? For Tomcat, every release candidate gets a new version number. We upload the RC to tomcat.a.o/dev/dist and test it for a few days. If we find a show stopper, we delete the uploaded RC and start again (it is still tagged in svn if we ever need to go back). If no major issues are found, we vote on it (Alpha/Beta/Stable) and after the vote the files are copied to www.a.o/dist and an announcement sent out. HTH, Mark - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to recap, we had 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed Each of those proposals could be voted down, but are not subject to veto. In other words, a -1 expressed in such a vote is just a -1, not a veto. Any Jakarta project that feels uneasy because it - has an isolated community - has a broader scope than Java should consider a TLP +1 - Sam Ruby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ad dormant code: what about matured code? (Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Rony G. Flatscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There may be many reasons why a project turned dormant: no interest (dead technology), committers having gone astray, etc. One reason that may be special is a project which got developed, is used, but there is no reason to develop it further. If classifying a project as matured it still may need fixing of problems and/or enhancements over time, making it necessary to create a new distribution. The idea of putting a matured project into the incubator realm does not sound right to me. That's is *not* what is being said. What is being said is that if a codebase loses all of its committers, and there is no one to nominate new committers, and one or more new volunteers come along that want to work on the codebase, then those individuals could become committers by applying to the Incubator. Anyone who is the position where they have become the last one or two committers to a codebase should put out a bulletin, first asking for other ASF Committers to step up, and if no one replies, then nominating likely candidates from the user list. Unless there are already rules that mandate that projects that got developed to a point after which they go into maintenance mode need to go into the incubator, I would suggest to create a new classification for such projects. Again, no one is suggesting that any codebase be unilaterally moved anywhere. If we are short of committers for a codebase, then what committers remain should recruit new committers. If we lose all the committers, and new volunteers come along, then the Incubator becomes the way that we bootstrap the new set of committers. When we realize that have no committers, for whatever reason, then someone should patch the website so that everyone knows where we stand. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If someone wants to turn Jakarta into a Java portal, then turn Jakarta into a Java portal. Some of the codebases may still be under the Jakarta PMC umbrella, but would have little effect on using the Jakarta site as a portal to the ASF's Java assets. Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being disbanded who provides the oversight? Anyone interested in such a thing can start now. There's no need for a vote. But it is under the auspices of the Jakarta PMC, I though there was a reluctance to see the jakarta PMC retained just for managing these resources? d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Here's a stupid but important question - what impact will all this have on the future development of Tomcat? Thanks, Brian -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sam Ruby Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:12 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta On 5/21/07, Jörg Schaible [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But to recap, we had 1/ Open-up Jakarta to all committers, was vetoed 2/ Merge commons into Jakarta, was vetoed 3/ Move commons into own TLP, was vetoed Each of those proposals could be voted down, but are not subject to veto. In other words, a -1 expressed in such a vote is just a -1, not a veto. Any Jakarta project that feels uneasy because it - has an isolated community - has a broader scope than Java should consider a TLP +1 - Sam Ruby - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
None - Tomcat is its own TLP -Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a stupid but important question - what impact will all this have on the future development of Tomcat? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being disbanded who provides the oversight? The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people doing the work. If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our Java assets, then make it so. A commit is the only vote that counts. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Voting on releasing RC artificats as Final
On 5/21/07, Nick Burch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi All For the 3.0 release of POI, we followed the advice on voting on artificats, the not the state of the tree. So, we used our ant script to produce RC artificats, signed them, and placed them on people.apache.org for review. After the vote, we renamed the files from -RC4- to -FINAL-, tweaked the filenames inside the .md5 files, and copied into /dist/. Two snags though: * we had to re-generate the maven pom, and re-sign it, as that holds the release version in it, which changed * we forgot that the .tar.gz and .zip files all have poi-3.0-rc4 as their base directory name, since the directory name is generated dynamically in build.xml What do other people do about this for their releases, when voting on artificats? Do you do each build as if it was -FINAL (so that gets embeded into all the directory names etc), then rename the artificats for voting, or something else? Don't your jars contain the version number too? The most recent release types I've done are the type where you create the exact release and put it in your ~login where it's voted on. I like this because it makes the actual release extremely easy. The biggest downsides are a) someone might be idiotic and use a random jar from a ~login and b) if you have the release date in there somewhere you have to use the day the vote ends. I don't like the Tomcat/Struts/HTTP Server style of bumping the version each time, but only really because they abuse their numbering schemes. ie) 1.3.5, 1.3.8 etc rather than 1.3.5build1, 1.3.5build4. The general principle is sound and if your community can do the testing to be able to decide on a GA, then it's good. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Ted Husted wrote: Worse case, the Commons group could always go with Apache Jakarta Commons. No one has objected to the re-use of the word Jakarta, and more than one person has affirmed that it could be used. That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being disbanded who provides the oversight? The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people doing the work. If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our Java assets, then make it so. A commit is the only vote that counts. Yes, OK, and that's what I'm trying to find out. Does anyone? or is it just me? If its just me then even without my customary modesty I'd struggle to imagine that I could provide a sensible level of attention, this requires some degree of support or we're just flogging a dead horse. I'm trying to find out whether or not it is even worth drafting a vote, or if we just want to all go home once the last active sub-projects get their TLP. d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do you still feel that way? -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Danny Angus wrote: On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok Ownership is perhaps the wrong word, if Jakarta is being disbanded who provides the oversight? The same people who provide oversight for any ASF project: The people doing the work. If anyone wants Jakarta to be the ASF portal to all of our Java assets, then make it so. A commit is the only vote that counts. Yes, OK, and that's what I'm trying to find out. Does anyone? or is it just me? It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage, since if it is just some commits as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal or something, but at least get some attention from the java projects out there if they are willing to help out and also have some collaboration with David Reid / projects.a.o. It's not worth it if the Apache java projects don't like the idea and help out at least with their project. (not suggesting you are of a different opinion though Danny) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage, since if it is just some commits as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal or something, but at least get some attention from the java projects out there if they are willing to help out and also have some collaboration with David Reid / projects.a.o. It's not worth it if the Apache java projects don't like the idea and help out at least with their project. (not suggesting you are of a different opinion though Danny) Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to include links to our other Java products that were never part of Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to include links to our other Java products that were never part of Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in. I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and it's current projects. That's fair. Every volunteer should scratch their own itch :) If other volunteers were ready to explore this course of action now, would you object to someone creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] portal here by extending the Jakarta home page? -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should just stay here till they are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do you still feel that way? -Ted. - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not just you :) It's just too early to do that at this stage, since if it is just some commits as Teds says, it will be a dead horse. I don't need something formal or something, but at least get some attention from the java projects out there if they are willing to help out and also have some collaboration with David Reid / projects.a.o. It's not worth it if the Apache java projects don't like the idea and help out at least with their project. (not suggesting you are of a different opinion though Danny) Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to include links to our other Java products that were never part of Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in. I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and it's current projects. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the project name Apache Jakarta Commons still be a problem for you if the physical infrastructure remained here, under the Jakarta hostname? -Ted. On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should just stay here till they are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do you still feel that way? -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to include links to our other Java products that were never part of Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in. I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and it's current projects. That's fair. Every volunteer should scratch their own itch :) If other volunteers were ready to explore this course of action now, would you object to someone creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] portal here by extending the Jakarta home page? Easy enough to do; resurrect this page and start adding to it :) http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/jakarta/site/xdocs/site/java_at_apache.xml?view=logpathrev=482036 Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no major changes happen to the main site at this stage. Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand. And when that time comes to worry about that, I'll work with the people who still have the itch and the cycles to spare. Starting to make it happen now feels like a waste of time, since the future of Jakarta is by no way set at this moment. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Then take it to the next stage. Update the Jakarta home page to include links to our other Java products that were never part of Jakarta, like iBATIS, and invite all ASF Java products to use our news feed. Open the door, and see if anyone walks in. I am on a different schedule, volunteering on my own terms. In my view doing this now is *way* too premature. I currently only want to invest my time and energy on Jakarta and it's current projects. That's fair. Every volunteer should scratch their own itch :) If other volunteers were ready to explore this course of action now, would you object to someone creating a [EMAIL PROTECTED] portal here by extending the Jakarta home page? -Ted. - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
That's quite problematic : Jakarta is responsible for jakarta.apache.org, not commons, sharing that responsibility will just complicate things a lot. It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened) commons become Jakarta.. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: What if the proposal were to create the TLP for the purpose of reporting directly to the board, but nothing else changed? Would the project name Apache Jakarta Commons still be a problem for you if the physical infrastructure remained here, under the Jakarta hostname? -Ted. On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yep still feel that way. Projects that want to use the Jakarta name, should just stay here till they are the only one left and after that re-establish the Jakarta Project. Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That *you* don't see a problem in using the Jakarta name, doesn't mean no one has expressed objections (you even responded to those objections) Yes, I looked back over the thread, and I stand corrected. You did say that the use of the Jakarta name in another TLP seemed premature. Do you still feel that way? -Ted. - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One link to a separate page isn't a problem, since I prefer that no major changes happen to the main site at this stage. Currently I am pretty much dedicated in keeping Jakarta as a brand. And when that time comes to worry about that, I'll work with the people who still have the itch and the cycles to spare. Starting to make it happen now feels like a waste of time, since the future of Jakarta is by no way set at this moment. Why does it have to be and either/or proposition? I would think that regardless of what anyone envisions the future of Jakarta to be, extending the home page to highlight *all* of the Java products at the ASF would be a Good Thing. The notion of extending the Jakarta home page so that it can become the focal point of all things Java at Apache seems orthogonal as to whether or not Jakarta continues to host subprojects. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened) commons become Jakarta.. Then why the concern about the use of Apache Jakarta Commons as a project name? When the time comes, we could just point jakarta.apache.org at commons.apache.org/jakarta. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened) commons become Jakarta.. Actually, it might be helpful if you repeated yourself in full, to be sure we're not talking past each other. For example, I don't know what flattened means. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Flattened means : jakarta.apache.org/commons becomes jakarta.apache.org :) Mvgr, Martin Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened) commons become Jakarta.. Actually, it might be helpful if you repeated yourself in full, to be sure we're not talking past each other. For example, I don't know what flattened means. -Ted. - 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: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Ted Husted wrote: On 5/21/07, Martin van den Bemt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's pretty simple to solve this though (even though repeating myself here) : Let (a flattened) commons become Jakarta.. Then why the concern about the use of Apache Jakarta Commons as a project name? When the time comes, we could just point jakarta.apache.org at commons.apache.org/jakarta. I am highly opposed to that because of the following reasons : - If commons wants to be Jakarta they just should work *here* to achieve that. - If commons is leaving to come back, they are just ignoring the other projects that are still here. - It is solving the problem the wrong way - The biggest (developer) community is in commons. We need them to still care and think about the rest of Jakarta. It's just like leaving your parent's home to live on your own to run away from your siblings and then try to move back in when the siblings left the parental home. Big chance your parents will not let you do that. Going to bed now.. Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
