Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:02 +0200, I scribbled: When is the next board meeting scheduled, BTW? I can actually answer that myself. We missed the Sep 20th board meeting, so the next will be Wed, Oct 18th, the week after AC US. Best regards Henning -- Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen INTERMETA GmbH [EMAIL PROTECTED]+49 9131 50 654 0 http://www.intermeta.de/ RedHat Certified Engineer -- Jakarta Turbine Development Linux, Java, perl, Solaris -- Consulting, Training, Engineering For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations for Nature cannot be fooled - Richard P. Feynman - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users, and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts. And yeah, it grew in scope. DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it was home grown. And Billy did it too! isn't really a good reason to do it :) Agreed. And neither do i think Johnny couldn't do it is really a good reason not too do it. :) I don't understand that argument. You are trying to say no, we're not an umbrella while saying yes, we are, but you did it too. I'm having trouble resolving these two confusing messages. And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. How do you draw the line? That's the real question here. I'd love to hear good thoughts and suggestions on this. I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the wording of the charter-ish stuff in there. Of course, i'm probably explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these discussions than i did in that document... So, to summarize, the line should be drawn: - On a case by case basis. - Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC - To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity, without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase. Sure - there could be a rule that it only works with velocity - IOW, w/o velocity, it doesn't function. Velosurf seems to be a good example of this. - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the core Velocity codebase. That's hard to measure. If that's known as a criterion, people will just say the right things. How's that sound? If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions. Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer. I would love it to be. Please help! But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) That's not obvious to me. Hopefully you mean that wasn't obvious to you. I've gone to some pains to explain this... :) I'm slow. geir geir geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes are binding. :) thanks, everyone! On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the board.
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
On 9/24/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users, and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts. And yeah, it grew in scope. DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it was home grown. And Billy did it too! isn't really a good reason to do it :) Agreed. And neither do i think Johnny couldn't do it is really a good reason not too do it. :) I don't understand that argument. You are trying to say no, we're not an umbrella while saying yes, we are, but you did it too. I'm having trouble resolving these two confusing messages. I wrote a fairly long post on velocity-dev some weeks back in response to Martin vdb's concerns (which were similar to yours) that addressed this confusion. I'll try to summarize briefly... I don't think the word umbrella fits Jakarta. Jakarta is more of a tarp or at best a canopy of sorts. It's a sack full of projects with no center. But because the word umbrella has been attached to Jakarta (and Logging and Db and Xml), all of their problems (and few of their successes) are now unfortunately associated with it around here. Velocity, on the other hand, has already been what is in my mind a functional and successful umbrella. It has a center pole around which its the sub-projects have and will continue to revolve. So, to point: i'm torn between trying to redefine umbrella or just eschew the word altogether due to its illegitimate (IMHO) baggage. But more specific to the conversation above, i was simply rebutting your argument that Velocity being an umbrella is something new. My statement that it was under your leading was tangential. I'm not pushing this move to TLP on the merits of what other projects or even Velocity in the past have done or have failed to do well. And rather than take the time to repeat the reasons, i'll just refer you to my past posts on the subject. And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. How do you draw the line? That's the real question here. I'd love to hear good thoughts and suggestions on this. I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the wording of the charter-ish stuff in there. Of course, i'm probably explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these discussions than i did in that document... So, to summarize, the line should be drawn: - On a case by case basis. - Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC - To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity, without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase. Sure - there could be a rule that it only works with velocity - IOW, w/o velocity, it doesn't function. Yeah, that sounds like a great way to simplify this criterion! Velosurf seems to be a good example of this. - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the core Velocity codebase. That's hard to measure. If that's known as a criterion, people will just say the right things. True. Let me try a rephrase of it: - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have not demonstrated consistent interest and investment in the continuing maintenance and development of the core Velocity codebase. To me that calls for some evidence like bug reports, patches, participation on dev@, etc. How's that sound? If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Hi, I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be another Jakarta (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that Jakata is always considered a bad example). On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity) will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP. I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider Clustering a good thing. Having a small group of related projects available through a single point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing. Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow lost there. A project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is located somewhere else. For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net), and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and Click seem to be an even match. So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good thing IMHO. Best regards Henning On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, and i gave the vote a full week! Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :) I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions. But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes are binding. :) thanks, everyone! On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the board. So... The proposal is
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
On 9/23/06, Henning Schmiedehausen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be another Jakarta (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that Jakata is always considered a bad example). On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity) will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP. I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider Clustering a good thing. Having a small group of related projects available through a single point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing. I tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, I don't think Lucene is the best example to point to, though, since it demonstrates how projects can drift. What I mean is that something like Hadoop should not be part of Lucene, just as MINA should not be part of Directory. (I think) I understand how both of these happened, but still, it's something that a Velocity TLP would do well to bear in mind. -- Martin Cooper Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow lost there. A project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is located somewhere else. For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net), and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and Click seem to be an even match. So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good thing IMHO. Best regards Henning On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, and i gave the vote a full week! Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :) I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions. But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, and i gave the vote a full week! Not complaining, just noting why :) Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :) I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users, and struts didn't want it. We didn't create a replacement for struts. And yeah, it grew in scope. DVSL was similar. Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it was home grown. And Billy did it too! isn't really a good reason to do it :) And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. How do you draw the line? If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions. Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer. But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) That's not obvious to me. geir geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes are binding. :) thanks, everyone! On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the board. So... The proposal is available for your perusal at: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11553094014r=1w=2 And the vote happens here: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Thanks! - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Adding velocity-dev Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: Hi, I'm completely with Nathan here. A Velocity TLP will not be another Jakarta (though I do fail to see why everyone seems to believe that Jakata is always considered a bad example). Right - the only thing that was bad about Jakarta is that we grew too fast for scalable Apache governance, and that people identified more with Jakarta than with the ASF. On the opposite. The Velocity TLP is intended to help reducing the number of projects that Jakarta has. Which is a push that was started by Henri last year. The fact that Velocity already has a number of projects (VelocityTools, which doesn't make any sense without Velocity and same goes for DVSL; two projects that are heavily entwined with Velocity) will not go away whether it is located under Jakarta or its own TLP. I understand the whole history. I never understood the pressing need to push things out of Jakarta - projects were leaving on their own - but it doesn't really matter. I know that we will be reluctant in accepting new projects into Velocity and I hope that you will be one of the watchguards of that policy on the new Velocity PMC. But personally, I consider Clustering a good thing. I'd like a clearer charter. Having a small group of related projects available through a single point of access (like e.g. the Lucene related stuff) is a good thing. Just pushing everything top-level IMHO is not. Especially if projects are too small to go TLP. And putting e.g. VelocityTools under Jakarta would IMHO not be correct because it would be somehow lost there. A project like that would always look towards Velocity even if it is located somewhere else. For upcoming stuff: there currently is talk with Click (click.sf.net), and the relation of Click to Velocity is similar (IMHO) the the relation of Velocity to VelocityTools. They will have to go through incubation (surely) if they decide to join, but the communities of Velocity and Click seem to be an even match. So, in a nutshell: Don't worry. Velocity will not become another Jakarta. It might become another Lucene or MyFaces with a small number of clearly defined, Velocity related projects, though. Which is a good thing IMHO. I'm worried or I wouldn't be saying anything. geir Best regards Henning On Fri, 2006-09-22 at 21:18 -0700, Nathan Bubna wrote: On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, and i gave the vote a full week! Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :) I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions. But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes
Fwd: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Hi, I responded on velocity-dev, not general. Should we take the rest of this discussion to velocity-dev so it's appropriate archived and no one is left out? best, WILL -- Forwarded message -- From: Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sep 23, 2006 3:22 PM Subject: Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP To: Velocity Developers List velocity-dev@jakarta.apache.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wow. Skip email for a day and there's a blizzard. I take Geir's comments pretty seriously though. To me, the most important part of this is the opportunity to grow the developer community. That's easy to say, of course. Technically, any committer in Jakarta now has svn commit rights to Velocity, and it hasn't seemed to make a difference. But by encouraging carefully selected projects to join the Velocity TLP, I think we'd see more energy and effort around Velocity core itself. What are those projects - how do we grow them - worthy of a separate thread. Process point -- should we put the vote on hold for a few days until we can discuss this and resolve Geir's -1? Best, WILL Maybe we can On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right - moving to TLP doesn't make a difference there, other than the plan to bring in velocity related things into the project, which grows the commiter base. geir Nathan Bubna wrote: No, that is not basically the reason. On 9/22/06, Daniel Dekany [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saturday, September 23, 2006, 1:02:35 AM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. [snip] So, Velocity will be TLP. Now, somebody correct me if I get it wrong, but is the reason basically that its developer community was not active enough, and being TLP would help to fix this situation? -- Best regards, Daniel Dekany - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com -- Forio Business Simulations Will Glass-Husain [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.forio.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes are binding. :) thanks, everyone! On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the board. So... The proposal is available for your perusal at: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11553094014r=1w=2 And the vote happens here: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Thanks! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes are binding. :) thanks, everyone! On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the board. So... The proposal is available for your perusal at: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11553094014r=1w=2 And the vote happens here: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Thanks! - 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: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This vote closed sooner than expected. I was traveling and there was no stated deadline. Aw, c'mon. It's been in discussion on velocity-dev for over a month, and i gave the vote a full week! Still, further votes and discussion are fine with me... :) I'm +1 and -1. I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable. Not necessary, but not unreasonable. I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is going the wrong direction. Nothing new about it. Velocity became just such an umbrella under your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and VelocityTools? :) And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or for Velocity. There are big differences between being free to invite projects and being a catchall and between being a project that uses or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon Velocity. If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to come to Apache, the door is open and they are welcome. And template engines are welcome too, right? The question is whether being here would be just about them having the foundation and infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too. If community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache organizationally. So rather than a blanket statement that any Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project interested in joining the Velocity TLP. And you, as a Velocity PMC member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and decisions. But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using things that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :) Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :) geir Nathan Bubna wrote: Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own... +1 votes: Nathan Bubna Martin van den Bemt James Mitchell Henri Yandell Jorg Schaible Henning P. Schmiedehausen Will Glass-Husain Torsten Curdt Rony G. Flatscher Jesse Kuhnert Dion Gillard Daniel Rall Matthijs Lambooy Niall Pemberton Claude Brisson Malcolm Edgar Christoph Reck +0 votes: -none- -1 votes: -none- I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of those votes are binding. :) thanks, everyone! On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for a proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta umbrella and become their own top level project. Martin has asked us to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to the board. So... The proposal is available for your perusal at: http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the following thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11553094014r=1w=2 And the vote happens here: [ ] +1 I support the proposal [ ] +0 I don't care [ ] -1 I'm opposed to the proposal because... Thanks! - 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] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
