Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
This is amazing. I agree with Craig on something almost completely. Craig McClanahan wrote: On 5/30/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/30/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ack in terms of driving a community away because it is unable to meet our arbitrary criteria. That sort of thinking just seems so Borg to me. It's another way of saying that a software product only has value if its hosted by the ASF. If a subproject, or even a project, is down to one or two committers, and those committers can't find a third, and don't want to apply to the Commons or declare the product dormant, then setting up shop on GoogleCode is an excellent alternative. I've done the same myself, and it's not the least bit painful. In many ways, it's joyful. Which Apache projects have you moved to GoogleCode and found it a joyful experience? ie) I presume you mean starting a project there rather than moving a community from the ASF. I suspect you are missing the point that *I* at least think Ted is making ... doing open source outside of Apache is fun, if you like doing open source. Doing open source inside Apache is a pain ... even if you like doing open source, and even if you are an insider and know all the loopholes. My distaste for driving people to an open source repository is not because of the repositories, but because our rules have driven them out. It might even be healthy if more ASF committers were involved with other hosts. The ASF may be a cult, but it should not also be a fetish :) Other communities, not 'host's. ie) You won't learn much from code.google, java.net or sf.net other than whether you love or hate the infrastructure. I bet a lot of us are involved with other communities. You're right that it's more community oriented than host oriented (because it is about the process, not the technology). You are wrong if you believe that the Apache Way (if there is such a singular thing, which I would dispute based on seven years of evidence to the contrary) makes things easier rather than harder. Yes, there are some benefits of the Apache brand, but it is an open question whether they are worth the costs. For myself, I have lots of ideas to do future open source projects, and (at the moment) zero plans to do them here at Apache. The emotional and procedural and cultural costs are too high to compensate for the branding benefits. Hen Craig - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Buni Meldware Communication Suite http://buni.org Multi-platform and extensible Email, Calendaring (including freebusy), Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease of installation/administration. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
This is amazing. I agree with Craig on something almost completely. Craig McClanahan wrote: On 5/30/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/30/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ack in terms of driving a community away because it is unable to meet our arbitrary criteria. That sort of thinking just seems so Borg to me. It's another way of saying that a software product only has value if its hosted by the ASF. If a subproject, or even a project, is down to one or two committers, and those committers can't find a third, and don't want to apply to the Commons or declare the product dormant, then setting up shop on GoogleCode is an excellent alternative. I've done the same myself, and it's not the least bit painful. In many ways, it's joyful. Which Apache projects have you moved to GoogleCode and found it a joyful experience? ie) I presume you mean starting a project there rather than moving a community from the ASF. I suspect you are missing the point that *I* at least think Ted is making ... doing open source outside of Apache is fun, if you like doing open source. Doing open source inside Apache is a pain ... even if you like doing open source, and even if you are an insider and know all the loopholes. My distaste for driving people to an open source repository is not because of the repositories, but because our rules have driven them out. It might even be healthy if more ASF committers were involved with other hosts. The ASF may be a cult, but it should not also be a fetish :) Other communities, not 'host's. ie) You won't learn much from code.google, java.net or sf.net other than whether you love or hate the infrastructure. I bet a lot of us are involved with other communities. You're right that it's more community oriented than host oriented (because it is about the process, not the technology). You are wrong if you believe that the Apache Way (if there is such a singular thing, which I would dispute based on seven years of evidence to the contrary) makes things easier rather than harder. Yes, there are some benefits of the Apache brand, but it is an open question whether they are worth the costs. For myself, I have lots of ideas to do future open source projects, and (at the moment) zero plans to do them here at Apache. The emotional and procedural and cultural costs are too high to compensate for the branding benefits. Hen Craig - 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 5/26/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ack in terms of driving a community away because it is unable to meet our arbitrary criteria. That sort of thinking just seems so Borg to me. It's another way of saying that a software product only has value if its hosted by the ASF. If a subproject, or even a project, is down to one or two committers, and those committers can't find a third, and don't want to apply to the Commons or declare the product dormant, then setting up shop on GoogleCode is an excellent alternative. I've done the same myself, and it's not the least bit painful. In many ways, it's joyful. It might even be healthy if more ASF committers were involved with other hosts. The ASF may be a cult, but it should not also be a fetish :) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Henr i Yandell writes: Chiefly, we need to decide if we're sending the Commons proposal. The We decided already to submit the Commons proposal by virtue of the vote result. I suggest we uphold the current decision and submit the proposal in order to make some progress. daniel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/25/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4) Goto code.google. Ack :( I wouldn't discount GoogleCode (or Java.net or SourceForge or CodeHaus). Right now, there's a GoogleCode site that I use everyday, and it's been utterly reliable. There's features I miss, but the UI is so convenient, I don't mind. We are not Borg, and not every software product need live under the ASF umbella. Jakarta2 - A flattened commons-like umbrella which in terms of change means a flattened dev@ list and svn changes. What I don't know is whether people are going to be demanding that the subsites look the same; ie) need to mavenize each project and adjust the site. The easiest way to deal with things will be to move the other subprojects into Commons and reestablish the Project. This is probably just an unfortunate turn of phrase, but we can't just move anyone anywhere. The Incubator PMC is not going to accept any code without volunteers to go with it. Likewise, we can't do anything about the subproject websites without volunteers to do that work too. But, as a PMC, we could ask infra@ to create a shared mailing lists to replace the others, and make karma adjustments. Here's my take-away from Henri's post. The Jakata PMC, as it stands today, could set a deadline for the remaining subprojects to make other hosting arrangements (TLP, Commons, Google). Otherwise, on a date certain, we would create single Jakarta Dev and User lists for all the remaining subprojects to share, and open karma to all the subprojects to all the Jakarta committers, in the style of the Commons. In other words, create a TLP, join the Commons, or become a commons. One other alternative would be for the active committers to those remaining subprojects to draft their own resolution proposal for creating a new Jakarta PMC, and boot the rest of us out. :) Though, if anyone wanted to make that happen, I'd suggest making it happen for the June board meeting, to coincide with the Commons proposal. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/26/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/25/07, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4) Goto code.google. Ack :( I wouldn't discount GoogleCode (or Java.net or SourceForge or CodeHaus). Right now, there's a GoogleCode site that I use everyday, and it's been utterly reliable. There's features I miss, but the UI is so convenient, I don't mind. We are not Borg, and not every software product need live under the ASF umbella. Ack in terms of driving a community away because it is unable to meet our arbitrary criteria. Jakarta2 - A flattened commons-like umbrella which in terms of change means a flattened dev@ list and svn changes. What I don't know is whether people are going to be demanding that the subsites look the same; ie) need to mavenize each project and adjust the site. The easiest way to deal with things will be to move the other subprojects into Commons and reestablish the Project. This is probably just an unfortunate turn of phrase, but we can't just move anyone anywhere. Yes we can, we just choose not to. Our PMC has a history of delegating the decision making to the subprojects, rather than making it for them; it's not a requirement. Still - I'm definitely presuming that that will continue. Subprojects need to be on board. The problem is when a subproject chooses option 5; do nothing. Is that a decision we're happy with. The Incubator PMC is not going to accept any code without volunteers to go with it. Things get really easy in that situation - we retire it just like Alexandria. We've not got any code without community currently. Likewise, we can't do anything about the subproject websites without volunteers to do that work too. We can volunteer. (I'll happily go in and change things :) ). But, as a PMC, we could ask infra@ to create a shared mailing lists to replace the others, and make karma adjustments. Here's my take-away from Henri's post. The Jakata PMC, as it stands today, could set a deadline for the remaining subprojects to make other hosting arrangements (TLP, Commons, Google). Otherwise, on a date certain, we would create single Jakarta Dev and User lists for all the remaining subprojects to share, and open karma to all the subprojects to all the Jakarta committers, in the style of the Commons. In other words, create a TLP, join the Commons, or become a commons. One other alternative would be for the active committers to those remaining subprojects to draft their own resolution proposal for creating a new Jakarta PMC, and boot the rest of us out. :) Though, if anyone wanted to make that happen, I'd suggest making it happen for the June board meeting, to coincide with the Commons proposal. Chiefly, we need to decide if we're sending the Commons proposal. The board learnt from the Shale/Struts proposal not to accept anything if the current PMC are not happy with the situation. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I object to the fact the it seems to be so difficult to escape Jakarta. :) So far, it's been *much* less difficult than creating the Jakarta Commons in the first place! Back in the day, we actually had a separate mailing list just for for the discussions about whether to create the subproject, and how it would work if we did! :) So far, the TLP resolution quickly passed by a landslide. Two of us had reservations about an Apache Commons project that's devoted to Java, as opposed to an Apache [Java|Jakarta|Mocha|J] Commons that's devoted to Java. There were two other negative votes for different reasons, and almost thirty votes in the affirmative. Meanwhile, some of us have pointed out that the other remaining subprojects are within the scope of the Jakarta Commons, and have wondered if these subprojects would now like to join the commons. Of course, that could happen before or after the proposed resolution is offered to the board. But, if it did happen first, that change would remove any complaint as to using Apache Jakarta Commons as a project name. From the beginning, the intent was to submit the proposed resolution to the June board meeting. There's time yet to see if the other subprojects want to join, so nothing is being delayed. I'd encourage people to step back for a moment and look at what Jakarta actually is today. Its a very disparate group of voices pulling in different directions. This is a natural result of the true meaning of Jakarta - the community around the code - leaving. There is no longer any focus within Jakarta. Nor has there been for a *very* long time. Ummm, you may be confusing cause and effect. Jakarta has been very disparate group of voices pulling in different directions for as long as I've been here, which would be going on seven years. :) -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/25/07, Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In fact, I object to the fact the it seems to be so difficult to escape Jakarta. :) So far, it's been *much* less difficult than creating the Jakarta Commons in the first place! Back in the day, we actually had a separate mailing list just for for the discussions about whether to create the subproject, and how it would work if we did! :) :) So far, the TLP resolution quickly passed by a landslide. Two of us had reservations about an Apache Commons project that's devoted to Java, as opposed to an Apache [Java|Jakarta|Mocha|J] Commons that's devoted to Java. There were two other negative votes for different reasons, and almost thirty votes in the affirmative. Meanwhile, some of us have pointed out that the other remaining subprojects are within the scope of the Jakarta Commons, and have wondered if these subprojects would now like to join the commons. Of course, that could happen before or after the proposed resolution is offered to the board. But, if it did happen first, that change would remove any complaint as to using Apache Jakarta Commons as a project name. From the beginning, the intent was to submit the proposed resolution to the June board meeting. There's time yet to see if the other subprojects want to join, so nothing is being delayed. *nod* I think we're at a point of needing to offer options to the subprojects: 1) Go TLP (or other TLP) 2) Stay for Jakarta2 (see below) 3) Goto the Incubator - I know this is a very disliked option, but it's better than the only other option I can think of: 4) Goto code.google. Ack :( I admit to thinking that the three big question marks in terms of living in a flattened dev@ list for me are Slide, JMeter and Cactus. I'm willing to be +1 to them being in a flattened Jakarta2 with an eye to sending them TLP if we can build community. It's effectively the Jakarta2 community incubating them, but if it helps things move on... Jakarta2 - A flattened commons-like umbrella which in terms of change means a flattened dev@ list and svn changes. What I don't know is whether people are going to be demanding that the subsites look the same; ie) need to mavenize each project and adjust the site. The easiest way to deal with things will be to move the other subprojects into Commons and reestablish the Project. Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
To those trying to preserve Jakarta I say 'let go of Commons'. Don't abuse Commons to try and save Jakarta. If the Jakarta name is worth saving, people and community will form to save it. If not, then it will die. Thats normal and natural. Maybe not a reference to me, but in case it is, a reaction is probably needed. I am not abusing commons to save Jakarta. I just don't want commons to claim the Jakarta name when it leaves, since that would be abusing the other projects still present at Jakarta. That's what my notes are about : if the commons goal is to become Jakarta, you shouldn't leave. (not saying that this is what you wanted, just my observation from the threads going on) Mvgr, Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
- Original Message From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary: a) I believe the status quo is not viable b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta subprojects into the Commons, not the other way around. Yes, Jakarta subprojects should be invited to join Commons. I'll happily welcome them to the Commons fold. But *invited* is the key word. They must not be forced - isn't the ASF about 'community'? For me that means not pushing groups to go where they don't want to go. * The remaining subprojects all seem to be reusable components within the scope of the Commons charter. Mostly, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their own communities (even a community of one). They mustn't be forced to do anything. Encouraged perhaps, not forced. * If the remaining subprojects join the Jakarta Commons, then we could then ask the board to re-establish the Jakarta PMC, using the list suggested in the draft resolution as the initial PMC. * The extended Commons group then becomes the new Jakarta PMC. This seems complicated, political, and unecessary. We have a vibrant community in Commons, and for some half-arsed reason we seem to be trying to abuse it's strength to save long-dead Jakarta. I know some people here have long attachments to 'Jakarta', and the perceived 'brand'. I don't. (At one time I did want to save Jakarta, but then I saw how much of a disfunctional beast it had become). Jakarta is like a family, where the children have left home and have their own lives now. Commons has its own life too. Its own community. And that's independent of Jakarta. There is no need to have a Jakarta PMC overseeing Commons. In fact, I object to the fact the it seems to be so difficult to escape Jakarta. To those trying to preserve Jakarta I say 'let go of Commons'. Don't abuse Commons to try and save Jakarta. If the Jakarta name is worth saving, people and community will form to save it. If not, then it will die. Thats normal and natural. In the alternative, without an anchor subproject, or a ready initiative to promote Java at Apache, realistically, Jakarta whithers away. I'd encourage people to step back for a moment and look at what Jakarta actually is today. Its a very disparate group of voices pulling in different directions. This is a natural result of the true meaning of Jakarta - the community around the code - leaving. There is no longer any focus within Jakarta. Nor has there been for a *very* long time. Whatever Jakarta becomes once Commons leaves is up to Jakarta, and those who feel it should exist. Just don't abuse Commons to try and save Jakarta. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/23/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary: a) I believe the status quo is not viable b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta subprojects into the Commons, not the other way around. Yes, Jakarta subprojects should be invited to join Commons. I'll happily welcome them to the Commons fold. But *invited* is the key word. They must not be forced - isn't the ASF about 'community'? For me that means not pushing groups to go where they don't want to go. * The remaining subprojects all seem to be reusable components within the scope of the Commons charter. Mostly, but that doesn't mean that they don't have their own communities (even a community of one). They mustn't be forced to do anything. Encouraged perhaps, not forced. * If the remaining subprojects join the Jakarta Commons, then we could then ask the board to re-establish the Jakarta PMC, using the list suggested in the draft resolution as the initial PMC. * The extended Commons group then becomes the new Jakarta PMC. This seems complicated, political, and unecessary. We have a vibrant community in Commons, and for some half-arsed reason we seem to be trying to abuse it's strength to save long-dead Jakarta. I know some people here have long attachments to 'Jakarta', and the perceived 'brand'. I don't. (At one time I did want to save Jakarta, but then I saw how much of a disfunctional beast it had become). Jakarta is like a family, where the children have left home and have their own lives now. Commons has its own life too. Its own community. And that's independent of Jakarta. There is no need to have a Jakarta PMC overseeing Commons. In fact, I object to the fact the it seems to be so difficult to escape Jakarta. To those trying to preserve Jakarta I say 'let go of Commons'. Don't abuse Commons to try and save Jakarta. If the Jakarta name is worth saving, people and community will form to save it. If not, then it will die. Thats normal and natural. In the alternative, without an anchor subproject, or a ready initiative to promote Java at Apache, realistically, Jakarta whithers away. I'd encourage people to step back for a moment and look at what Jakarta actually is today. Its a very disparate group of voices pulling in different directions. This is a natural result of the true meaning of Jakarta - the community around the code - leaving. There is no longer any focus within Jakarta. Nor has there been for a *very* long time. Whatever Jakarta becomes once Commons leaves is up to Jakarta, and those who feel it should exist. Just don't abuse Commons to try and save Jakarta. I agree that Commons shouldn't be burdoned with solving the Jakarta issues - it should have its own PMC and be in control of the space it operates in. Maybe the remaining sub-projects need to do something similar - put together a TLP proposal - with the idea that they group togther like Commons (single dev/user mailing list) to give each other oversight. Niall Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Martin van den Bemt wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:16 AM: 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.. +1 We have the brand and lot of people do not even recognize that Jakarta Commons != Jakarta (nor do they probably care). Especially now that most of the original jakarta projects went to TLPs. Assimilate the rest in one flat hierarchy. - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/22/07, 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.. I thought that that idea was unpopular with some commons commiters on this PMC? d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/22/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 5/22/07, 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.. I thought that that idea was unpopular with some commons commiters on this PMC? I'm a Commons Committer (although not active lately, nor likely to be again soon because of other personal interests, so take this for what it's worth) ... but I always assumed that what Martin describes (commons becomes Jakarta) was the natural endgame when you've encouraged all the active subprojects that should be TLPs to do so, and dealt appropriately with dormant/dead/inactive codebases. The only other reasonable alternative would seem to mean sending Commons somewhere else and retiring the Jakarta name. That doesn't make marketing sense to me ... although (even though I have a Business Admin degree, Marketing was definitely my least favorite subject :-) On the other hand, are there enough Commons committers (across *all* the libraries) to matter (i.e. create a viable community), or should we just consider the whole thing an exercise that has come to a natural conclusion (a bunch of mature code, and a bunch of experiments that never attracted much community) and call it a day? If Commons is still viable, then Commons - Jakarta only makes sense, and the sooner the better to minize user confusion. Otherwise, the discussion of what to do next seems a bit academic. Craig PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community for *any* of the libraries on their own? Or enough that care about the Commons ecosystem as a whole to satisfy Apache's notions of community? It is not clear to me (any longer) that a commons type environment fits Apache culture (as it is currently being discussed) at all. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community for *any* of the libraries on their own? Or enough that care about the Commons ecosystem as a whole to satisfy Apache's notions of community? It is not clear to me (any longer) that a commons type environment fits Apache culture (as it is currently being discussed) at all. You're right, it probably doesn't. Towards that end, we should encourage Commons components with robust communities to apply for top-level status, so that they can report directly to the Board and have their own mailing lists. The one list rule is a great equalizer and should help keep the Commons from becoming another Jakarta. To support smaller communities throughout the ASF, we may need to adjust our notion of Committer and PMC Member to include not only people who can write and apply patches, but to embrace power users too. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
- Original Message From: Ted Husted [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 5/22/07, Craig McClanahan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: PS: Yes, of course, there are passionate believers in the development of particular libraries. Are there enough to make a viable community for *any* of the libraries on their own? Or enough that care about the Commons ecosystem as a whole to satisfy Apache's notions of community? It is not clear to me (any longer) that a commons type environment fits Apache culture (as it is currently being discussed) at all. You're right, it probably doesn't. Towards that end, we should encourage Commons components with robust communities to apply for top-level status, so that they can report directly to the Board and have their own mailing lists. The one list rule is a great equalizer and should help keep the Commons from becoming another Jakarta. Huh? Commons has one mailing list. Each of its components are not isolated islands suitable for TLP, but part of the shared commons identity. They are not Jakarta style subprojects. Note that there are cliques within commons, some people care about one set of components, other people care about another set of components. Thats OK. We can all commit, we can all vote, we can all comment on the mailing list. This approach of commons is different to the rest of the ASF, but it does work (and is probably the only way to support small codebases within the ASF. I also believe it is sufficiently different to how the other projects in Jakarta have been run to make merging not necessarily smooth. In summary: a) I believe the status quo is not viable b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups c) I believe that commons is big enough and strong enough to be a TLP So, I support Apache Commons TLP - Just as Tomcat grew up and left the Jakarta brand name, so should Commons. But we should assert our right for that to be Java only - we really did get the name first, and the commons community (one-list, one-pmc) is fundamentally tied to Java. Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Hi Stephen, Stephen Colebourne wrote on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:43 PM: [snip] In summary: a) I believe the status quo is not viable b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups c) I believe that commons is big enough and strong enough to be a TLP So, I support Apache Commons TLP - Just as Tomcat grew up and left the Jakarta brand name, so should Commons. But we should assert our right for that to be Java only - we really did get the name first, and the commons community (one-list, one-pmc) is fundamentally tied to Java. The point is (b). Is it really that different: A merged jakarta commons vs. commons alone? Commons has also some projects with different weight. Compare lang and digester. Any current Jakarta project that feels uneasy with such an absorbtion (possibly HttpComponnets, Taglibs ??), may head for an own TLP. All the others will not make much difference - since there are view committers left and most of them have dwindling communities. Additionally most of the left ones fit quite good into commons like oro, regexp, ECS, ... - Jörg - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/22/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In summary: a) I believe the status quo is not viable b) I believe that merging commons into Jakarta merges two mismatched groups My suggestion was to merge the Jakarta subprojects into the Commons, not the other way around. * The remaining subprojects all seem to be reusable components within the scope of the Commons charter. * If the remaining subprojects join the Jakarta Commons, then we could then ask the board to re-establish the Jakarta PMC, using the list suggested in the draft resolution as the initial PMC. * The extended Commons group then becomes the new Jakarta PMC. * The http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/index.html page becomes the Jakarta home page, and we change the first sentence there to read The Jakarta Commons project is focused on all aspects of reusable Java components.. In the alternative, without an anchor subproject, or a ready initiative to promote Java at Apache, realistically, Jakarta whithers away. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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]
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: [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: [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]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta This thread has been more quiet than I expected. A couple of quick thoughts: Henri and Henning seem to have the same ideas about Jakarta becoming a portal or federation and I'm +1 for that. I think that's a great idea and it's low maintenance. Really, what more would you need than the general@ list? 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). And the site should be as self-maintaining as possible, picking up news and releases from all other java projects at apache. I would think there is no more qualified group of people to put together such as site than we have in Jakarta/Apache. -- J Aaron Farr jadetower.com[US] +1 724-964-4515 馮傑仁 cubiclemuses.com [HK] +852 8123-7905 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and closure of the project? Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or 4 *years*. Con - Removes the remaining tangible historic links between former Jakarta sub-projects. At the ASF, we let them that do the work make the decisions. (Mainly because we have to ... otherwise, there would be no one willing to do the work!) We can talk about end-games until Sol goes nova, but in the end the volunteers who do the work will make the decision. So far, the subproject committers have been deciding to create their own TLP. Not because the Jakarta PMC said so, but because the subproject committers said so. The one proactive step we could take is to set a deadline for other TLPs to migrate or to find some other home, either as part of another TLP, or with another project host. Or, we could just wait the remaining subprojects out, and let nature take its course over the next year or three. 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and possibly general@) Pro - As Ted H. says We should stop thinking of Jakarta only as an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for Java, as originally intended. With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to james.apache come from jakarta.apache. Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources would be unacceptable to anyone.\ The goodness of the Jakarta brand isn't the result of working on the Jakarta brand. It's the result of fostering healthy communities that create great software. Now, those communities have gone on to create their own TLPs, and to create their own brands. Sure, Jakarta has name recognition. But so does Ant and Maven and Struts and Tapestry and Velocity. Essentially, Jakarta was the first incubator. Now we have a top-level Incubator, and most of our subprojects have gone on to become TLP too. I think Java at Apache has succeeded beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Today, the communities we fostered don't need the crutch of an uber-project. They can stand alone, and for that we should be happy! But not to worry. Whenever we foster healthy communities that create great software, we will create another great brand. It's what we do. :) 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved) Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the jakarta==java remit. Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step up) At the ASF, great brands are created by healthy communities that create great software. I would say that the Commons certainly fits that bill. An excellent way to preserve the Jakarta name would be to lend it to the Jakarta Commons TLP. After all, the Commons had a lot to do with creating the Jakarta brand as it exists today. 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any of the alternative options acceptable? - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it) - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers An Apache Jakarta Commons does not obviate a Jakarta federation or a Jakarta portal. If anything, reuse of the name increases its value. We can have our cake and eat it too! x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board? At the ASF level, when we talk about protecting a brand, we usually mean give credit where credit is due. Being a meritocracy, we don't want other people diluting our brand by claiming our work as theirs, or their work as ours. So long as the Jakarta brand is not being poached by a third-party, I doubt that anyone else would care. From an ASF perspective, the only things of value are those things that attract qualified volunteers. From a marketing perspective, a brand may attract downloads, but I don't know if it attracts volunteers. -Ted. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
so this thread died again without a conclusion or resulution.
My take with as few words as possible:
* push for active project to go TLP
* jakarta.apache.org - the portal to all java projects at apache.
Just a shell - but let's keep the brand. Not necessarily a PMC
required. (Although a non-code project trying to improve
collaboration between java projects would be an idea to discuss)
* ${commons}.apache.org - as people have concerns about the name (as
there is more than java) let's find a new one.
- commonsj
- jcommons
- ...
* dormant.apache.org - maybe a place where we put not just old stuff
from jakarta
cheers
--
Torsten
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta. I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues. 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and closure of the project? Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or 4 *years*. Con - Removes the remaining tangible historic links between former Jakarta sub-projects. 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and possibly general@) Pro - As Ted H. says We should stop thinking of Jakarta only as an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for Java, as originally intended. With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to james.apache come from jakarta.apache. Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources would be unacceptable to anyone. 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved) Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the jakarta==java remit. Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step up) 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any of the alternative options acceptable? - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it) - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board? My own (2c) opinion is that: 0/ Yes dissolve the jakarta pmc 1/ Yes preserve the brand 2/ If commons PMC would be comfortable with this it would be my preferred choice, *and* it would resolve the naming issue because the project could be Jakarta Commons which is a minor change from the sub-project name Jakarta/Commons 3/ If commons PMC would be against this then I think we should approach the prc. x/ Don't know In essence are we in favour of a revolutionary end or an evolutionary one? WDYT? d. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello to everybody, my personal opinion differes slightly. I still believe that we have to preserve Jakarta as a project summoning the Java projects in the foundation. If you ask me directly Do we need another Jakartas like for .NET for instance? - I would say yes. Those new Jakarta, or Nairobi or whatever we decide to call it has to be a TLP, and has to have a commons project, and has to have a PMC and everything else. Then,part of our current .NET projects could be transfered to the .NET-commons one. Actually I have been following the mail lists for more than three years by now, although I am part of the Jakarta project for less than three months, so you don't need to consider my thoughts seriosly. I am curious to hear what Martin van den Bemt has to say, as I know he is going to lead a presentation on the ApacheCON USA with the exact same name. Have a nice day. -- Regards, Petar! Karlovo, Bulgaria. Public PGP Key at: http://keyserver.linux.it/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x1A15B53B761500F9 Key Fingerprint: AA16 8004 AADD 9C76 EF5B 4210 1A15 B53B 7615 00F9
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:22 +0100, Danny Angus wrote: 0/ - Dismember the current Jakarta PMC - +1 1/ - Yes, preserve the brand - +1000 2/ - No. The commons PMC will run the commons project. A possible Jakarta PMC will not have the attention that might be needed. - -1 3/ - -1 on the PRC. They have enough to do running their stuff and they are not really interested in the day-to-day business of running a PRC. Here is a thought: Do we need a PMC? If we rethink Jakarta as Java @ Apache, it will be our gateway for Java interested developers into Apache. So what we need is sort of a portal site. Basically a subset of projects.apache.org, branded for Java. Those projects that feel they want to be on add a special tag (or just Java) to their DOAP files and off we go. Automatic web site. This is nothing fancy. And we keep some mailing lists: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maybe a [EMAIL PROTECTED] which is intended for people to ask about Java stuff and get redirected. Needs maybe one or two more web pages. Build the stuff and a nice front page that gets a news ticker similar to what Jakarta has today, add the these are our rules pages which we also have today, as these are the base for many other projects, ready. Do we need a PMC? Or could this be an effort run by an existing PMC? For me, infra would be the logical solution. Because, the whole portal thing is mainly that. Infrastructure. - create [EMAIL PROTECTED] - let anyone interested subscribe - get a repository which contains the site and hand out permissions for it - wait for a community to gather. This is a largely stable effort. There is not much work in it (IMHO). Why add the overhead of a PMC? I'd like to contribute to that effort. Best regards Henning Hi, Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta. I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues. 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and closure of the project? Pro - Draws a line under the reorg effort which has gone on for 3 or 4 *years*. Con - Removes the remaining tangible historic links between former Jakarta sub-projects. 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and possibly general@) Pro - As Ted H. says We should stop thinking of Jakarta only as an entity, and go back to thinking of it as to the ASF synonym for Java, as originally intended. With this thought in mind around 10% of the referrals to james.apache come from jakarta.apache. Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources would be unacceptable to anyone. 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved) Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the jakarta==java remit. Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step up) 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any of the alternative options acceptable? - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it) - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board? My own (2c) opinion is that: 0/ Yes dissolve the jakarta pmc 1/ Yes preserve the brand 2/ If commons PMC would be comfortable with this it would be my preferred choice, *and* it would resolve the naming issue because the project could be Jakarta Commons which is a minor change from the sub-project name Jakarta/Commons 3/ If commons PMC would be against this then I think we should approach the prc. x/ Don't know In essence are we in favour of a revolutionary end or an evolutionary one? WDYT? 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
On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 21:56 +0200, Henning Schmiedehausen wrote: On Tue, 2007-05-15 at 10:22 +0100, Danny Angus wrote: 0/ - Dismember the current Jakarta PMC - +1 1/ - Yes, preserve the brand - +1000 2/ - No. The commons PMC will run the commons project. A possible Jakarta PMC will not have the attention that might be needed. - -1 ^Jakarta PMC^Jakarta site^ 3/ - -1 on the PRC. They have enough to do running their stuff and they are not really interested in the day-to-day business of running a PRC. ^running a PRC^running as the PMC for Jakarta^ gee, why am I off my meds today? :-( Best regards Henning -- Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | J2EE, Linux, |gls 91054 Buckenhof, Germany -- +49 9131 506540 | Apache person |eau Open Source Consulting, Development, Design| Velocity - Turbine guy |rwc |m k INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH - RG Fuerth, HRB 7350 |a s Sitz der Gesellschaft: Buckenhof. Geschaeftsfuehrer: Henning Schmiedehausen |n - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PROPOSAL] The future of Jakarta
On 5/15/07, Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Ok, I've followed the commons TLP vote thread with some interest because it seems to impact directly on the end-game for Jakarta. I believe that we have to make some pretty fundamental decisions about that future before we can fully resolve the commons TLP issues. 0/ Do we agree that the end-game is dissolution of the Jakarta PMC and closure of the project? +1. Our current system needs to change. 1/ If so do we wish to preserve the Jakarta brand? (the website and possibly general@) +1. I like the idea of keeping general. Effectively we're talking about the much vaunted yet failed to materialize federation concepts. XML are ahead of us in this position; they have one project left (Xindice) for which my advice is sending it TLP and then all they will have left is a moribund PMC and the federation work they've done. Which I think is much like the [EMAIL PROTECTED] page I added a couple of years back (and removed not long ago). Con - Others consider that the effort of maintaining the resources would be unacceptable to anyone. We need to make sure it is self-maintaining to a large extent. The DOAP stuff might be a way to go, though I think we would want to mix it with branding and original content. 2/ If we believe that the brand should be preserved should the commons TLP take ownership of the brand (if/when Jakarta PMC is dissolved) Pro - Commons is an active community which continues to fulfil the jakarta==java remit. Con - Commons is not necessarily interested in the brand or maintenance of its resources. (would people from other projects step up) There's a huge tie between the portal (federation) idea and the commons idea. Both exist as a span for the projects in their category. I'd rather see two groups showing responsibility rather than lumping it on the one PMC. So -1 on this one. 3/ If we believe that a commons TLP should not own the brand are any of the alternative options acceptable? - Retain the Jakarta PMC solely to maintain the brand Maybe not so bad. It's a good start to being [EMAIL PROTECTED] as far as committers/members go. We could extend it such that it's very open to people being added. For example; there'd be no point having a Jakarta committer without them being on the PMC. - Move ownership of the brand to the prc (should they agree to have it) -1. StackOverflow. - Move ownership of the brand to projects.apache maintainers -1. StackOverflow. x/ Should we consult more widely the Members and/or the Board? I'm very tempted to ask for opinions on the federation idea on behalf of both Jakarta and XML as they're both hitting the point of needing to figure out how we would organize it. I think that part is definitely on the shoulders of the board/members. If we end up with code that is in maintenance (Slide, ECS, Alexandria, JServ, whatever); are we suggesting the Jakarta PMC would handle it or some other random group? Hen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
