Re: Proposal: Jakarta HiveMind Project

2004-03-02 Thread Stephen McConnell
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:

HiveMind fits into an area that partially overlaps the Apache Avalon project, with 
significant
differences. HiveMind's concept of a distributed configuration is unique among the 
available service
microkernels (Avalon, Keel, Spring, PicoContainer, etc.). Avalon is firmly rooted in a 
Service
Lookup pattern (whereby collaborating services must explicitly, in code, resolve 
dependencies
between each other using a lookup pattern similar to JNDI). HiveMind uses the 
Dependency Injection
pattern, whereby the framework (acting as container) creates connections between 
services by setting
properties of the services (property injection) or making use of particular 
constructors for the
services (constructor injection).
Howard:

Just for reference - the Avalon container implementation supports 
dependency injection via either constructor or the classic framework 
interface style.

Stephen.

--

||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/merlin/distributions/latest|
||
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were (draft 2)

2003-12-28 Thread Stephen McConnell
Ted:

First off - appologies because I havn't read every message on
Jakarta.  But it seems to me that someone has said that the
very notion of federation employed by the board to facilitate
management (i.e. the establishment of sub-structures) is for
some reason not-allowed beyond the level of the board (that's
just a conclusion based on recent posts to this list).
Basically I agree with just about everthing you saying in you
message - but I'm seeing what appears to be a group attempting
to work around constraints that eliminate the potential for
composite projects.  AFAIAC, if Jakarta put in place an
appropriate managemrnt model (involving sub-PMC or whatever),
is there anything politically incorrect with that approach?
Stephen.

Ted Husted wrote:

- Original message 
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:16:26 +
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were  (draft 2)
 

Since the PMC cannot delegate its responsibilities, the report would
have to be prepared by a PMC member, ideally one directly involved with
subproject. (A likely suspect being the DEV list moderator.)
 

 

Er, doesn't this just emphasize how broken this process is?
   

Not that I see. It formalizes what should have been done from the beginning. 

We tried to do it before, but we then run into the politics of whether the person making the report is the PMC representative to the subproject. 

The fundamental disconnect is that all of the committers should be on the PMC, because all of the committers are the decision-makers for one or more of our various products. 

 

-PROPOSITION (2)-
[snip]
Work regarding a specific subproject can continue to occur on that
subproject's DEV list. PMC members (aka committers) following that list
can vote on its releases and other day-to-day affairs. So long as the
minimum quorum is met, the vote is legal and binding.
 

 

So, we are trying to delegate power to subprojects? Er, but we can't now can
we.
   

No. We are instituting a minimum threshold meritocracy for each product. The PMC members/committers who are working on a product, and interested in its development, and the ones who make the decisions about that product. That's how it works now socially, and that's how it should work legally. 

 

So who can vote? 'Following the list' is a very vague term. Presumably I can
simply subscribe to struts-dev and then vote, never having even used struts?
It also seems highly dubious to say that a vote is legal and binding if most
of the PMC never knew the vote occurred.
   

As it stands today, any of the current PMC members could do exactly that. 

And, this is also how it works in the Commons today. If I want to chime in on a product and start committing, other volunteers are happy for the help. 

If you did subscribe to the Struts list and took an interest in the product, I'm sure we'd welcome your commits. You're an Apache Committer, and I'm sure you've earned your stripe. Not by trying to do harm, but by trying to do good.

The value of administrative [vote]s on the DEV list are often overrated. A veto must have technical merit to be binding. Malicious vetos are not valid. And, as you know, when someone tried to enforce their own will over the will of the community, the ultimate result (sadly) was a suspension of write access.

 

Under proposition (1), the significant events occurring for each
subproject would be reported to the PMC list, for the review of the PMC
at-large.
 

 

So the PMC is reviewing events already happened, not actively managing. Er,
sounds like the relationship between the board and a PMC to me.
   

No, the committers to each subproject are committee members. Most Apache projects practice a minimum threshold meritocracy. We don't expect every committer to be involved in every decision, or cast votes or opinion outside their area of interest or expertise. If three committers/members vote +1, we're good to go. 

The PMC was not meant to be a legislative body: it's suppose to be the core group, the decision-makers, the active managers, the committers. 

 

PMC membership is voluntary. Anyone can resign from the PMC at any
time. If a volunteer would like to be a committer, but not a PMC member,
then each subproject can then decide whether to support separate
committer and PMC member roles or not.
 

 

I would suggest that there is nothing in this proposal that will cause the
board members to have any more faith in Jakarta than they do now. And thats
because it changes nothing of significance.
   

It changes everything. It turns Jakarta from a place that is supposedly governed by an other wordly elite to a place that practice minimum threshold meritocracy -- both socially and legally. Today our social order is out-of-synch with our legal status. This proposal legalizes what already happens in practice.

* It provides a forum where ALL the 

Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were (draft 2)

2003-12-28 Thread Stephen McConnell


Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

On Dec 28, 2003, at 7:51 PM, Stephen McConnell wrote:

Ted:

First off - appologies because I havn't read every message on
Jakarta.  But it seems to me that someone has said that the
very notion of federation employed by the board to facilitate
management (i.e. the establishment of sub-structures) is for
some reason not-allowed beyond the level of the board (that's
just a conclusion based on recent posts to this list).
Basically I agree with just about everthing you saying in you
message - but I'm seeing what appears to be a group attempting
to work around constraints that eliminate the potential for
composite projects.  AFAIAC, if Jakarta put in place an
appropriate managemrnt model (involving sub-PMC or whatever),
is there anything politically incorrect with that approach?


As far as I know, there is nothing that prevents any sub-structures.  
However, one school of thought (the one I subscribe to) believes that 
substructures aren't needed.  As we aren't trying to manage from 
above, but rather trying aggregate oversight from below by bringing 
interested committers into the PMC and providing education on oversight. 


Your sentiments are very close to my own.

But instead of thinking about substructures as unit to mange - think 
about substructures as units that provide a Jakarta PMC with information 
that you need in order to fulfil the reposibilities of the Jakarta PMC.  
Its' like saying - hey guys - a bunch of Jakart PMC members cannot do 
everyting alone - we need some support - and one way to get support is 
to put in some structure (a.k.a. delegation of reponsibility) to the 
subprojects that the Jakarta PMC is responsible for.  If those 
subprojects jump-up and say - hey, here is an elected representative 
who hase volunteered to keep you up to date and even better - they say 
our elected representative is only there to present the opinion of a 
bunch of a committed committers - and by the way - we are calling 
ourselves a PMC or XPM or ZPC or whatever.

Bottom line - I was involved with an unmanged suproject of Jakarta.   
That project has now exited Jakarta because the Board provided the 
management model.  What I'm thinking is that there is no reason why the 
Jakarta PMC cannot provide the environment to its subproject (i.e. 
provide the managemewnt model) to take on responsibility - and though 
this, strengthen and support the Jakarta PMC.

Stephen.




geir

Stephen.

Ted Husted wrote:

- Original message 
From: Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 14:16:26 +
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] As it ever were  (draft 2)

Since the PMC cannot delegate its responsibilities, the report would
have to be prepared by a PMC member, ideally one directly involved 
with
subproject. (A likely suspect being the DEV list moderator.)



Er, doesn't this just emphasize how broken this process is?

Not that I see. It formalizes what should have been done from the 
beginning.
We tried to do it before, but we then run into the politics of 
whether the person making the report is the PMC representative to 
the subproject.
The fundamental disconnect is that all of the committers should be 
on the PMC, because all of the committers are the decision-makers 
for one or more of our various products.


-PROPOSITION (2)-
[snip]
Work regarding a specific subproject can continue to occur on that
subproject's DEV list. PMC members (aka committers) following that 
list
can vote on its releases and other day-to-day affairs. So long as the
minimum quorum is met, the vote is legal and binding.



So, we are trying to delegate power to subprojects? Er, but we 
can't now can
we.

No. We are instituting a minimum threshold meritocracy for each 
product. The PMC members/committers who are working on a product, 
and interested in its development, and the ones who make the 
decisions about that product. That's how it works now socially, and 
that's how it should work legally.


So who can vote? 'Following the list' is a very vague term. 
Presumably I can
simply subscribe to struts-dev and then vote, never having even 
used struts?
It also seems highly dubious to say that a vote is legal and 
binding if most
of the PMC never knew the vote occurred.

As it stands today, any of the current PMC members could do exactly 
that.
And, this is also how it works in the Commons today. If I want to 
chime in on a product and start committing, other volunteers are 
happy for the help.
If you did subscribe to the Struts list and took an interest in the 
product, I'm sure we'd welcome your commits. You're an Apache 
Committer, and I'm sure you've earned your stripe. Not by trying to 
do harm, but by trying to do good.

The value of administrative [vote]s on the DEV list are often 
overrated. A veto must have technical merit to be binding. Malicious 
vetos are not valid. And, as you know, when someone tried

Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Stephen McConnell


Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a 
restaurant under EU regs.  They must keep them cold until being 
served.  Ug. 


I can help you out on this particular subject!
No shortage of soft cheese ready for a stated day of delivery where live.
Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Stephen McConnell


Stephen McConnell wrote:



Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

You also can't get soft cheese at a reasonable temperature in a 
restaurant under EU regs.  They must keep them cold until being 
served.  Ug. 


I can help you out on this particular subject!
No shortage of soft cheese ready for a stated day of delivery where live. 


s/where live/where I live

SJM



Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: EU analogy [PROPOSAL] Proactively encourage TLP status

2003-12-28 Thread Stephen McConnell


Stephen Colebourne wrote:

you haven't seen what the EU has been up to :)  Talk about
over-regulation...
   

LOL  :-)  OK, so it is a bad analogy.  I don't believe that either
Costin or
I live in the EU.
 

I don't either.  I live in Connecticut, USA.

I was always suspicious that something was amiss trying to integrate
proud countries with long individual histories, but it was confirmed
the first time I had to schelp from Terminal 4 to Terminal 3 at
Heathrow just so I could pick up the bus to Reading, which used to stop
at all 4 terminals, but stopped going to terminal 4 because EU regs
said the total trip was too long.  The whole thing is something like an
hour. :/
   

I live in the UK, so can comment ;-) The thing that I spot about the EU is
that is is often used as a scapegoat. When individual countries (or often
the media) wants to shift blame it is convenient. This comes about because
citizens of each country identify more with their own country than with the
EU. (Note: I believe that the EU does a lot of good, but it'll never be my
country)
Perhaps the parallel is that a Struts 'citizen' identifies more with the
Struts 'country' than the Jakarta 'union'. Of course one key difference is
that we don't have the individual governments at the country/Struts level.
+100

Stephen.

Stephen

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-27 Thread Stephen McConnell


Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Stephen McConnell wrote:

 

If I understand correctly, the opinions of an individual are not the
same as a motion passed by the BOD.
   

Correct.

 

In fact, my understanding is that the role of PMC implies
no rights at all - just extra responsibility.
   

 

Is there anything concrete to suggest otherwise?
   

Did you read the two messages, one from Roy, the other from Greg in his
official capacity as ASF Chairman?  If not, please do so.  

Yes I have read the posts from Roy and Greg. 

If so, and you
still have some questions that you feel you must have answered, perhaps it
would be best for you to addressed them directly with the Board.  I don't
believe that it would be appropriate for anyone else to pose an
authoritative sounding answer.
I think I disagee - let me explain why.

Based on my reading of Board minutes and the corporation documents there 
is identification of the notion of ASF officers and member and 
protection that the ASF provides to individuals within these roles.  
However, a PMC member may not necessarily be an ASF member. In this 
particular case the PMC member, while recognized by the Board as 
contributing to project oversite, is IMO not formally granted any 
protection by the ASF beyond actions clearly bound to a board directive.

While I know that Greg has specifically stated that PMC members shall be 
granted protection by the ASF, there is Roy's qualified who is or was 
serving at the request of ... statement, and as such - I think that we 
dealing with a definition that is rather subjective.

For example, am I in writing this email, acting in the capacity of a PMC 
member, a committer, or an individual?  One could argue that no officer 
of the foundation has requested that I raise this question therefore I 
am not acting in accordance with Roy's definition.  On the otherhand I 
could be asking this question in order to clarify this question in order 
to properly represent the interests of the developers in the Avalon 
community in which case I could argue that I am asking this question in 
my capacity as a member of the Avalon PMC (protected under Greg's 
comments and possibly protected subject to the opinion of an officer of 
the corporation under Roy's definition).  But what if an officer of the 
corporation disagrees with my question - do I loose the protection that 
is asserted?

I think this comes down to the fact that the general definition of a PMC 
member in terms of responsibilities (and thereby liabilities and 
commensurate need for protection) at the level of PMC establishment by 
the Board are minimal - but sufficient to enable a PMC as a body to 
qualify these aspects - and through this process (involving the 
establishment of policies and procedures) - establish tangible and 
quantifiable protection towards its members in a manner that is 
representative of the resonsibilities (and corresponding liabilities) 
that PMC membership encompasses.

Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Indemnification of the PMC

2003-12-26 Thread Stephen McConnell
Geir :

If I understand correctly, the opinions of an individual are not the 
same as a motion passed by the BOD.  It is my understanding the BOD has 
not passed any resolution that grants a PMC member any of the rights 
implied by the message quoted below.  In fact, my understanding is that 
the role of PMC implies no rights at all - just extra responsibility.

Is there anything concrete to suggest otherwise?

Cheers, Stephen.

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

Here is the clearest description I've found.  It's by Roy Fielding, 
ex  chair and board member of the ASF, and from all appearances, 
extremely  knowledgeable in these matters.  It was posted here :

http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/ReadMsg? 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]msgNo=2642

Indemnification is a promise by the corporation to pay the legal
  expenses of an *individual* if that *individual* becomes subject
  to criminal or civil proceedings as a result of their actions
  under a role identified by the corporation, as long as such person
  acted in good faith and in a manner that such person reasonably
  believed to be in, or not be opposed to, the best interests of the
  corporation.  In other words, a member is only indemnified for
  their actions as a member (not much).  A director or officer is
  only indemnified for their actions as a director or within the
  scope of their mandate as an officer.  A PMC member is indemnified
  under the category of who is or was serving at the request of
  the corporation as an officer or director of another corporation,
  partnership, joint venture, trust or other enterprise and only
  to the extent of that enterprise (the project).  A committer
  who is not a PMC member is not authorized by the corporation to
  make decisions, and hence cannot act on behalf of the corporation,
  and thus is not indemnified by the corporation for those actions
  regardless of their status as a member, director, or officer.
  Likewise, we should all realize and understand that the ASF's
  ability to indemnify an individual is strictly limited to the
  assets held by the ASF.  Beyond that, we are on our own as far
  as personal liability.
  It is a far better defense that an outside entity cannot
  successfully sue an individual for damages due to a decision
  made by a PMC, so it is in everyone's best interests that all
  of the people voting on an issue be officially named as members
  of the PMC (or whatever entity is so defined by the bylaws).
So in summary, a PMC member is indemnified for activities done on  
behalf of the corporation.  I think that this would be limited to the  
official activities of the PMC - things done on behalf of the board 
for  the ASF, such as oversight and releases - and not general 
day-to-day  committer activities, such as technical discussion and 
personal code  commits.  Of course, that will probably need to be 
clarified too.

However, the key thing to remember is that the indemnification is 
only  up to the limit of the ASFs resources, which isn't much.  So try 
to  keep the litigation to a minimum :)

geir

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Stephen McConnell


Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:04:26 -0500
To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Just in case you're curious
On Dec 21, 2003, at 5:03 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

   

You go discus your private matters wherever you like, I'd like to talk
about
open source projects and am quite willing to do so in the open.
 

And you know there's a difference.  :)

   

Not to me.

Wow ... and you say just don't get the difference!
ROTFL
Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: Just in case you're curious

2003-12-22 Thread Stephen McConnell


Dain Sundstrom wrote:

Larry,

I'm surprised that no one answered this (at least that I saw).  From 
what I understand, ASF believes that those on PMC have liability 
protection from the ASF because the PMC members are acting on behalf 
of the organization.  Further is it seems that the ASF does not 
believe this protection extends to those not in the PMC (this is my 
personal logical conclusion based on statements around why someone 
would like to join a PMC).  This protection is usually referenced when 
people talk about IP, and I'm not sure if it extends to other areas. 


This conflicts with my own understanding of the situation.

I am a member of the Avalon PMC but there is nothing that I am aware of 
that gives me any protection at all.  In fact the recent emails have 
suggested there is a distinction between the opinion of the chair 
(recognized) and the opinion of the PMC (not recognized).  Basically the 
PMC can say what it wants - but that does not count at the level of the 
board.  What matters is what the chair states (even if the chair states 
things that contradict PMC members or PMC collective opinion).

I''m also interested in a clarification of the function and purpose of a 
PMC relative to the Board.

Stephen.

--

Stephen J. McConnell
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
||
| Magic by Merlin|
| Production by Avalon   |
||
| http://avalon.apache.org/merlin|
| http://dpml.net/   |
||




-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

2003-12-02 Thread Stephen McConnell


Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
What I would like to do is to hear from Howard himself (or anyone 
working on the HiveMind project)!  I'm particularly interested in how 
Avalon can leverage some of the technologies in HiveMind, and I'm 
equally confident in the ability of Avalon to provide 
value-add to the HimeMind project - and I'm not talking about 
classic avalon component interfaces - I'm talking about generic
container-side facilities.
The is a potential for mutual benefit.
Isn't that worth exploring?


I aggree with Andy's comments below ... you can't incubate HiveMind 
 inside Avalon. My Blob (http://javatapestry.blogspot.com) discusses
this as well, with some other insights (partly into my own neuroticism).
Just a point of clarification.  Avalon is *not* going to incubate 
anything.  HiveMind *will not exist* inside Avalon.  This is simply 
because Avalon is not engaging in multi-container incubation - period. 
What Avalon is doing - and what is relevant to your initative and Avalon 
- it the work going on towards the delivery of a set of common container 
facilities.  There is potential for HimeMind to leverage this and for 
Avalon to leverage content in HiveMind with respect to this viewpoint 
and only this viewpoint.




Avalon is a community - and within that community is an effort to 
harmonize different directions in component models taking 
into account the differences across internal development, and 
external iniatives. HiveMind is another aspect in that picture.
This means more potential, leveraged code, skills, knowledge,
users, etc.  I happen to think that there is potential in getting
together and talking about things like leverage, synergy, projects,
etc.


I've considered HiveMind an experiment, and experiment that 
 concludes when the community is formed and the code is mature.
 The nature of open source and the ASL is very fluid; the best
 ideas from HiveMind can be cherry-picked from the mature
codebase. What I'm nervous about is bringing HiveMind
into Avalon and mucking up other people's code with my vision.


Let me make something real clear

A HiveMind product will not land in Avalon. Period. Full-stop. 
Will-not-happen.  Get this notion of HiveMind in Avalon of you mind 
forever.  Can HiveMind contribute to what is happening in Avalon - yes. 
Is this clear to everyone on this list?  Avalon is not a resting place 
for a particular container project.  Avalon is not about incubation. 
HiveMind will not be some subproject in Avalon. I will not happen! Take 
my word for it. And this has nothing to do with HiveMind content - its 
simply a question concerning the strategy in Avalon.  The stategy is not 
about multiple containers - its not even about a single container.  Its 
about the contract and the framework for solutions.

I hope that helps clarify things a touch.  Sorry  if I sound like I'm 
repating myself but I'm kind of anoyed with some of the miss-information 
that has been floating around here recently!

;-)




While Hivemind is a virgin idea that needs community
building, and is not ready for Jakarta -- it is surely not 
ready for Avalon either.  I would be against its entry into 
Jakarta ATM (and I doubt Howard would propose it).  However,
I think it is ripe for foundry at jakarta commons or some
place appropriate for starting a community.
Obviously it should be watched for eventual entry as a Jakarta 
 project.  Howard is obviously now qualified to sponsor it in
 the incubator himself (as I've pretty much vowed never to
 incubate anything ever again,
I'd rather focus my efforts outside of Apache than go through 
that quagmire of bureaucratic procedure again**).


Well, the incubator will be a challenge but there will be explicit rules for leaving incubation and
I won't tolerate the incubators going beyond their mandate. The mandate is to show an active
community working together and to ensure that there are no IP problems in HiveMind or its depdendant
libraries. We will ensure that the mandate and exit rules are explicit before we start. 
Agreed.

Those procedures have been develped with the principal of holding the 
Incubator PMC accountable step by step from the point of view of people 
aiming to exit incubation.  The procedures should help make an exit 
rapid and successful.



Howard - can you do me a favour and kick of a thread actually 
detailing what we want - and throw into it what you think or don't 
think  should be your relationship with Avalon.  Please keep in mind that 
everything I've seen so far suggests that you have a 12-18 out-of-date 
picture of what avalon is and what avalon is doing - and I want to clear 
that up. I suggested you post a message on [EMAIL PROTECTED] as part of the 
process. I still think that that the right place to discuss this.


I have a backlog of avalon-dev mail to catch up on.


No problem.
Don't hesitate to jump in with questions.

As an Avalon principal, I can assure you that Avalon is not a 
threat to the potential of an 

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

2003-12-01 Thread Stephen McConnell


Andrew C. Oliver wrote in haste:
I say
that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.


Personally - I'm interested in getting some feedback from Howard on a
number of question I've posted to him on this list and remain hopeful
that he or other members of the HiveMind team will leverage the pool of
opinions and talent over on Avalon - as a mutually interesting exercise
(just as members of that same pools are interested in leveraging the
content and knowlege from the HiveMind team).  As far as I can se the
question of collaboration remains completely open - after all - no
discussion has taken place todate either here on over on avalon.
I think  it would be good to at least do some exploration of mutual
interests - don't you?


I feel a Jon coming on.  Your itch not mine -- However, after your private
rants to (at?) me I kind of doubt how genuine this much more eloquent email
is.  
LOL

Andrew, you stooping at little low even by your standards.

;-)

Don't worry, you'll get a chance to express your yourself!

But let's not miss the the question I think it would be good to at 
least do some exploration of mutual interests - don't you?.  You claim 
is that this is my itch - not yours.  My claim is that this is a 
community itch - not something personal.

There is a potential benefit here!
Isn't this worth exploring?

In truth, a rather virgin Hivemind would (ironically considering the
name) be consumed by Avalon rather than affecting Avalon.


Maybe you may have a disconnected idea of what Avalon is and what it is 
doing.  If you take a look at the archives you will see some posts 
addressing the HimeMind project both before and after this thread was 
initiated.  What you will see is technical and community issues being 
raised and discussed.  One thing is clear - avalon is not a candidate 
incubator for HiveMind - avalon is about a single product.  Does that 
imply consumption?  Yes - if consumption were appropriate - the majority 
of opinion over at avalon is that it is not.


You may find
emailing me personally to be rather disappointing as I say pretty much the
same things though sometimes more succinctly.  Personally, I feel your
effort is more likely intent to prevent an alternative to Avalon.


You sinking down low again!

You made some assertions implying that Avalon considered itself as an 
only solution (you opinion). You went on presented a (weak) 
justification for that position.  My personal email to you expressed my 
personal opinion concerning, you inaccuracy of the assertions, my 
confusion pertaining to you justification, and my request for an 
explanation.

Instead of attempting to sidetrack the discussion around Andrew and his 
personal in-tray - lets focus on the HiveMind community and its 
role/relevance/synergy within the Apache community.  I figure that there 
is value to be gained - but value requires dialogue and interaction.

So far there has not been no dialogue nor interaction.
That's the issue to address today.

I prefer to see Hivemind established as a community (as far as I know Howard
is the only member of the community ATM) before exploring as you say.  I see
no reason to deprive Howard of the opportunity to establish Hivemind and
build a community.  


What I would like to do is to hear from Howard himself (or anyone 
working on the HiveMind project)!  I'm particularly interested in how 
Avalon can leverage some of the technologies in HiveMind, and I'm 
equally confident in the ability of Avalon to provide value-add to the 
HimeMind project - and I'm not talking about classic avalon component 
interfaces - I'm talking about generic container-side facilities.

The is a potential for mutual benefit.
Isn't that worth exploring?

I do however apologize for attributing the email containing the following
statement to you.  It was actually from Danny Angus, however the sentiment
appears to coincide with yours wouldn't you agree?
The danger of having an Avalon alternative @jakarta is that it will be seen
by people as somehow being Jakarta's favoured solution, rather than as one
of two (or more) alternatives promoted by Avalon.
If you see what I mean.


No.

I personally don't look at Avalon as the end game.  Avalon is a 
community of people who happen to be focussed on this subject area. 
There is a lot of stuff happening in this domain.  Avalon is rapidly 
evolving and incorporating new ideas and solutions from users such as 
Dany (and hundreds of others) combined with multiple external projects 
in the same area.

Avalon is a community - and within that community is an effort to 
harmonize different 

Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

2003-12-01 Thread Stephen McConnell


Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Perhaps you missed that part of my message.  
No - I didn't miss anything.

What you could do is try to add some rationalization around your
arguments instead of making negative assertions about a project
you are not involved with and are not interested in.
The rest of your email is snipped because it is simply diverging
from the real question concerning potential.  It seems to me your
trying to derail that potential.  Well, sorry, I'm not going to be
derailed.  I have genuine interests in what happens here and I would
like to hear from Howard about what he wants and what he thinks the 
potential synergy could play out with mutual benefit.

Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

2003-11-30 Thread Stephen McConnell


Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

I don't think that Avalon has any right to have a stranglehold on all
service frameworks.  
Andrew:

The Avalon community very aware of the the different approaches that 
exist.  If your following the Avalon dev list you would be aware of 
ongoing discussions concerning different approaches in the 
container/component space - the benefits and disadvantages, emergent 
opportunities, brick-walls, etc.

I also must say that I hate the come discuss this in
'our' house approach to collaboration.
I'm surprised that you feel this way.  If you were subscribed to Avalon 
dev you would have been aware of discussions concerning HiveMind before 
the subject came up here.  Several members were discussing this subject 
at a technical level that would not make sense on this list.  My 
invitation to Howard (that seems to have offended you for reasons that I 
don't understand) was based on the interests in getting some thoughts 
from the Howard and other members of the HiveMind community on aspect 
relating to collaboration with Avalon.  Perhaps we have different ideas 
on what that means - for me at least is about sharing ideas and talking 
- its not (as you suggest) a notion of territory to be protected.

I hope that Howard or other members of the HiveMind team take up that 
invitation because there is potential synergy.


One size does not fit all and
Avalon has shown over the years that this is especially true for it.  


Interestingly, the activities over on avalon over the past year have 
been addressing many of the deeper issues implied by you conclusion. 
What does one size mean?  Is size adaptive?  How does one deliver the 
the parametrized solution that best fits the size that is needed?  All 
of these question are being addressed within Avalon today. I also happen 
to to think that Howard and the HiveMind team could contribute to that 
and I also think that the more recent work in Avalon could contribute to 
HimeMind.

I say
that Howard Lewis Ship is a skilled coder and community builder and if he
wants to give it a try with HiveMind, while the topic bores me personally,
I'll give him my support.  If he does want to collaborate with the
Avalonites (Avaloners?) then he should be encouraged to do so; however, if
his approach is different enough to warrant its own show then I encourage
him to do that as well.  I trust his judgment to that effect.


Personally - I'm interested in getting some feedback from Howard on a 
number of question I've posted to him on this list and remain hopeful 
that he or other members of the HiveMind team will leverage the pool of 
opinions and talent over on Avalon - as a mutually interesting exercise 
(just as members of that same pools are interested in leveraging the 
content and knowlege from the HiveMind team).  As far as I can se the 
question of collaboration remains completely open - after all - no 
discussion has taken place todate either here on over on avalon.

I think  it would be good to at least do some exploration of mutual 
interests - don't you?

Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Re: [Proposal] HiveMind Service Framework

2003-11-13 Thread Stephen McConnell


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've put up a limited copy of the HiveMind documentation on my personal home page:
Howard:

Are you open to the idea of discussing some mutual areas of interest?

There are a number of aspects of the work you are doing that are 
complimentary with the work on-going in Avalon, and several areas in 
Avalon which after review your material are complimentary with your own 
efforts.  Can I get you to sign up to the avalon dev list bacause I 
would very much like to discuss this further together with other members 
of the Avalon crew.

Details for the Avalon dev list are available at the following URL:

  http://avalon.apache.org/mailing-lists.html

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

Cheers, Stephen.



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]