RE: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-11 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Martin,

  Jakarta is
  Components
  Sandbox
  Things move from sandbox to components.

 That would be fine if there was a well-defined scope for the sandbox.

Should be the same as the scope for Jakarta.  Define that, and you may have
your answer.

--- Noel


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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 00:48 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
  What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, as long
  as it's written in or for Java?
 
 My fault, I thought we'd had a long thread on this before so didn't do 
 much explaining.
 
 The same as Commons Sandbox contains potential Commons components, Jakarta 
 Sandbox would be much the same but contain potential Jakarta components. 
 Maybe I'm jumping the gun.

Call me ignorant but that sounds like the incubator without incubation
process. 

If you want to know about sandboxes, ask the Turbine people. We have
had quite a number. Stratum, Fulcrum (which finally picked up speed),
flux, jyve, origami, you've named it. 

A sandbox without a defined process that either promotes a project to
become a real Jakarta project or calls quits and closes it (and moves
it into archives) will IMHO lead to a lot of dead stuff. Look at
sourceforge. While I like the basic idea of open source running free,
my experiences from Turbine show that it does not work without at least
some control.

So I vote -0. I don't really like the idea but I'm not deeply enough in
the discussion to veto it.

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

Social behaviour: Bavarians can be extremely egalitarian and folksy.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bavaria
Most Franconians do not like to be called Bavarians.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franconia


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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
 Yes.  A lot of things predate the incubator.  I'm not opposed to say an 
 HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
 I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it 
 scratchpad) for POI-related stuff.  However Jakarta-sandbox is 
 SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want 
 to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.

the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were
entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal
existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for
jakarta.

anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code
in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in
scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself. 

jakarta's scope is the problem but it's hard to fix for both historic
and community reasons

- robert 



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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Martin Cooper
On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:

 On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
  Yes.  A lot of things predate the incubator.  I'm not opposed to say an
  HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
  I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it
  scratchpad) for POI-related stuff.  However Jakarta-sandbox is
  SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want
  to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.

 the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were
 entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal
 existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for
 jakarta.

 anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code
 in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in
 scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself.


When something graduates from this Jakarta Sandbox, where does it go?
Being a _Jakarta_ sandbox, one might assume that it becomes a Jakarta
subproject. But Hen has claimed to want to morph Jakarta into a
non-umbrella, and graduating to a new Jakarta subproject would be counter to
that goal. On the other hand, if it graduates to somewhere outside of
Jakarta, why is the sandbox inside of Jakarta?

--
Martin Cooper


jakarta's scope is the problem but it's hard to fix for both historic
 and community reasons

 - robert



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




Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Henri Yandell



On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:


On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

Yes.  A lot of things predate the incubator.  I'm not opposed to say an
HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it
scratchpad) for POI-related stuff.  However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.


the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were
entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal
existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for
jakarta.

anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects. code
in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in
scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself.



When something graduates from this Jakarta Sandbox, where does it go?
Being a _Jakarta_ sandbox, one might assume that it becomes a Jakarta
subproject. But Hen has claimed to want to morph Jakarta into a
non-umbrella, and graduating to a new Jakarta subproject would be counter to
that goal. On the other hand, if it graduates to somewhere outside of
Jakarta, why is the sandbox inside of Jakarta?


In my incoherent mind it's:

Jakarta is
   Components
   Sandbox

Things move from sandbox to components. Once there, they are arranged into 
groupings to smooth communication.


Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Martin Cooper
On 4/10/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



 On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:

  On 4/10/06, robert burrell donkin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  wrote:
 
  On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 22:31 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
  Yes.  A lot of things predate the incubator.  I'm not opposed to say
 an
  HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
  I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it
  scratchpad) for POI-related stuff.  However Jakarta-sandbox is
  SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you
 want
  to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.
 
  the sandbox already exists. the management and supervision were
  entrusted to the commons sub-project. sub-projects have no formal
  existence. the scope of the sandbox is the same as the scope for
  jakarta.
 
  anything that is in scope for jakarta is in scope for sub-projects.
 code
  in other languages is pretty much out but nearly any subject is in
  scope. the only limits are imposed by the community itself.
 
 
  When something graduates from this Jakarta Sandbox, where does it go?
  Being a _Jakarta_ sandbox, one might assume that it becomes a Jakarta
  subproject. But Hen has claimed to want to morph Jakarta into a
  non-umbrella, and graduating to a new Jakarta subproject would be
 counter to
  that goal. On the other hand, if it graduates to somewhere outside of
  Jakarta, why is the sandbox inside of Jakarta?

 In my incoherent mind it's:

 Jakarta is
 Components
 Sandbox

 Things move from sandbox to components. Once there, they are arranged into
 groupings to smooth communication.


That would be fine if there was a well-defined scope for the sandbox. As
Andy and others have pointed out, there is no scope right now. That means
that someone could start, say, a new servlet container, or an OSGi
framework, or whatever, that would have no reasonable place as a Jakarta
Component.

--
Martin Cooper


Hen

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




Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Torsten Curdt
  However Jakarta-sandbox is
 SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want
 to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.

Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure?
What the difference for you?

You want every tiny (commons) library go through the incubator?
...or do you just don't want full projects sneak in through that sandbox?

So far I don't understand why you are seeing this so problematic.

cheers
--
Torsten

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Henri Yandell


On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:


 However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.


Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure?
What the difference for you?

You want every tiny (commons) library go through the incubator?
...or do you just don't want full projects sneak in through that sandbox?

So far I don't understand why you are seeing this so problematic.


I think I get it.

* If the scope of Jakarta = anything in Java, then a Jakarta Sandbox is a 
terrifying prospect.


* If the scope of Jakarta is refined, then a Jakarta Sandbox would not be 
a problem.


I think it's a pretty fair point for people to have. Will start another 
email based on Jakarta's scope.


Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-10 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
Why?  Do you need something to do?  I have many unworked open source 
tasks that I could pass on.  I'm happy to help you along on them. 
Seriously.


Henri Yandell wrote:


On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Torsten Curdt wrote:


 However Jakarta-sandbox is
SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.


Why on sourceforge - why not on our infrastructure?
What the difference for you?

You want every tiny (commons) library go through the incubator?
...or do you just don't want full projects sneak in through that sandbox?

So far I don't understand why you are seeing this so problematic.


I think I get it.

* If the scope of Jakarta = anything in Java, then a Jakarta Sandbox is 
a terrifying prospect.


* If the scope of Jakarta is refined, then a Jakarta Sandbox would not 
be a problem.


I think it's a pretty fair point for people to have. Will start another 
email based on Jakarta's scope.


Hen

-
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: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Henri Yandell

y

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


Henri Yandell wrote:



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


-1 on these points

1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.  All new 
projects must go through the incubator and endure.  Commons sandbox was 
created prior to the incubator.


Nope, all new communities must go through the incubator, not all new 
projects (well, components).


So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go through the 
incubator just YOUR

incubator.


Nope, poor explanation on my part. Code created within the Apache 
community does not have to go through the incubator at all. The only bit 
component refers to is related to Martin's point - it describes Jakartas 
scope - or at least the scope that I think we're arriving at after years 
of subprojects becoming tlp.


3. -1 to the form of this proposal which seems overly coarse grained or 
not nearly detailed (I'm not sure which)


Sounds about right - response so far suggests I need a lot more in the 
proposal - and it's probably better to go with the JLC vote next so the 
sandbox issue would be more obvious (things would be going from Commons 
Sandbox to JLC grouping).


So far that seems like more commons mess.  Thus far I've failed to see what 
makes it not more of the same (aka commons).


The usual chestnut :) You say communities, I say community.

Agreed, the JLC proposal is completely yet more commons mess. Why's the 
'yet more' part of this negative?


Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Henri Yandell



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Nathan Bubna wrote:


On 4/8/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Henri Yandell wrote:



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


-1 on these points

1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.  All
new projects must go through the incubator and endure.  Commons
sandbox was created prior to the incubator.


Nope, all new communities must go through the incubator, not all new
projects (well, components).


So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go through
the incubator just YOUR
incubator.

Basically misery loves company so I think if the same sin buys me
purgatory, I'd like to see you there.  Even if you call your project a
component.


So, if i have an idea for a new group of code (avoiding component vs
project terminology for the moment) that would reasonably fit within
the jakarta mission (whatever you think that might be), you think i
should have to go through the incubator to start developing it?
sounds like a great plan to shut down innovation from within the
jakarta community or else force it to go underground and hide out
within existing groups of code.

maybe i'm wrong on this, but i always understood the incubation
process to be for bringing in outside
groups-of-code/communities-of-developers into the ASF.If some
Jakarta developers want to try and start a new group-of-code that
would fit in Jakarta, a sandbox seems like a great place to play
around with it and develop interest.

If, on the other hand, i've been developing some group-of-code over at
sourceforge, with oversight and community happening there, and at some
later point i want to bring that into Jakarta, then incubation makes
perfect sense to me.


+1, exactly how I understand it.

Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Simon Kitching
On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 00:51 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
 
 On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:
  And who is expected to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 Those who want to? :)
 
 I imagine those working on sandbox components at the moment, plus a 
 handful of people who tend to subscribe to such lists.
 
 Out of interest - if we take a list with N mails a day, and have 2 lists 
 with N/2 mails a day, is that something you'd view as more painful or the 
 same amount of pain?
 
 I know that when subscribing to Jakarta subprojects I'm not interested in 
 as a coder, I subscribe to both the -user and -dev and funnel them both 
 into the same folder. For my level of interest it's just [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
 not 
 ecs-xxx@ etc. So I'm probably answering more pain to the above, but I've 
 got a simple solution that hides the minor pain increase.

I'm more concerned about the other direction - a lack of people watching
this new sandbox.

Currently, all commons developers are subscribed to commons-dev, and
therefore get to see sandbox stuff. Ok, it's sometimes a little
annoying. However it does mean that we're all aware of what's going on
at a general level. Commits including non-ASF copyright statements are
going to be picked up for example, as are commits of jarfiles.
Help/comments are also often offered by committers not specifically
working on that sandbox project.

I'm worried that if the sandbox becomes its own world, then it will end
up with very few subscribers, and that good projects will therefore have
a hard time becoming a success.

Ideally, a sandbox project should be adopted by its closest living
relative, and use that project's list until it grows up. This
[EMAIL PROTECTED] idea looks more like a communal orphanage to me...

Of course if a big bunch of people volunteer to join this proposed
sandbox community then that would resolve my concerns.

Cheers,

Simon


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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Andrew C. Oliver


So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go 
through the incubator just YOUR

incubator.


Nope, poor explanation on my part. Code created within the Apache 
community does not have to go through the incubator at all. The only bit 
component refers to is related to Martin's point - it describes Jakartas 
scope - or at least the scope that I think we're arriving at after years 
of subprojects becoming tlp.




Not everyone is at your destination.  Nor does everyone agree on the 
direction.


Totally NOT how the incubator was described to me.  As I understand it 
if Tomcat (for instance) wants to create a new JSP engine, that's kosher 
for Tomcat.  However if someone in POI wanted to create a new AI engine 
(having nothing to do with MS file formats) then that is Incubator-toast.


3. -1 to the form of this proposal which seems overly coarse grained 
or not nearly detailed (I'm not sure which)


Sounds about right - response so far suggests I need a lot more in 
the proposal - and it's probably better to go with the JLC vote next 
so the sandbox issue would be more obvious (things would be going 
from Commons Sandbox to JLC grouping).


So far that seems like more commons mess.  Thus far I've failed to see 
what makes it not more of the same (aka commons).


The usual chestnut :) You say communities, I say community.



I said nothing of the sort either way.  I have come to consider such 
discussions in the same thread as proactively actuate our SOA 
realization strategy paradigm shift...  Lets focus on core and concrete.


Agreed, the JLC proposal is completely yet more commons mess. Why's the 
'yet more' part of this negative?




I would challenge that the problem with the commons mess is it has no 
scope what-so-ever -- except kinda java...or
not really...  And now somehow the Ant has designed to swallow the 
elephant.


-1 to that.  No more predominantly scopeless or fuzzy-scope 
commons-like-projects.  No more painless ways around the incubator.  Not 
because I love the incubator, I think it was a bad idea, but it should 
apply to everyone.


I think HTTPClient has a scope (for instance) and that's probably even 
tight.  I don't think commons has ANY scope other than what the 
participants have decided to do today.


If you want to talk the board's intent -- then this is the core of the 
issue and not whether you force us all to get 1000 irrelevant-to-us 
emails in a day.


-andy


Hen

-
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: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Rahul Akolkar
On 4/9/06, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip/

 Ideally, a sandbox project should be adopted by its closest living
 relative, and use that project's list until it grows up. This
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] idea looks more like a communal orphanage to me...

 Of course if a big bunch of people volunteer to join this proposed
 sandbox community then that would resolve my concerns.

snap/

This is where the prior discussion thread stalled in my mind: adoption
and visibility. Having worked on code in both Taglibs and Commons
sandboxes recently, IMO, anything that can give these projects greater
Jakarta visibility is good since quite a few projects/components in
the existing sandboxes [1],[2] are looking for developer support. It
remains to be seen whether the new SVN auth will help here.

-Rahul

[1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/sandbox/
[2] http://jakarta.apache.org/taglibs/ (see nav bar)


 Cheers,

 Simon



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



RE: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Noel J. Bergman
   * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])

sandbox-dev@ ?

Otherwise, fine.

--- Noel

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



RE: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Noel J. Bergman
 1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.
All new projects must go through the incubator and endure.

ACO's gratuitously snarky comments aside, projects coming into the ASF go
through the Incubator.  New things started entirely within the ASF do not,
currently.

--- Noel


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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread robert burrell donkin
On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 10:20 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

snip

 Totally NOT how the incubator was described to me.  As I understand it 
 if Tomcat (for instance) wants to create a new JSP engine, that's kosher 
 for Tomcat.  However if someone in POI wanted to create a new AI engine 
 (having nothing to do with MS file formats) then that is Incubator-toast.

that is a matter of scope, not incubation policy

a hypothetical example might help to illustrate the difference:

JSP engines are in-scope for tomcat but out-of-scope for xerces. xerces
is not allowed a JSP engine as part of that project. 

but if a new JSP engine wanted by tomcat was created outside the ASF, it
would need to come in through the incubator. if it arrives without a
external community (for example, because it was developed off-shore by
tomcat developers) then it's a simply process of legal sign off. if it
arrives with a community then it needs to enter as a podling to ensure
that the community gets the help they need to understand how apache
works.

however, if the xerces developers (let's say for sake of argument)
wanted to create a JCP engine at apache but outside tomcat they would
need to create a new project. it is now seems more difficult for new
projects to be created at apache (the test is subjective and democratic
so this is an observation not a rule). it is much easier to create a new
project offshore and then bring it in through the incubator. so, the
scope issue would (for practical purposes) probably require them to go
through the incubator.

- robert



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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
Based on that what WOULD BE out of scope of today's commons or this 
MEGA-sandbox or this JCL or whatever?


robert burrell donkin wrote:

On Sun, 2006-04-09 at 10:20 -0400, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

snip

Totally NOT how the incubator was described to me.  As I understand it 
if Tomcat (for instance) wants to create a new JSP engine, that's kosher 
for Tomcat.  However if someone in POI wanted to create a new AI engine 
(having nothing to do with MS file formats) then that is Incubator-toast.


that is a matter of scope, not incubation policy

a hypothetical example might help to illustrate the difference:

JSP engines are in-scope for tomcat but out-of-scope for xerces. xerces
is not allowed a JSP engine as part of that project. 


but if a new JSP engine wanted by tomcat was created outside the ASF, it
would need to come in through the incubator. if it arrives without a
external community (for example, because it was developed off-shore by
tomcat developers) then it's a simply process of legal sign off. if it
arrives with a community then it needs to enter as a podling to ensure
that the community gets the help they need to understand how apache
works.

however, if the xerces developers (let's say for sake of argument)
wanted to create a JCP engine at apache but outside tomcat they would
need to create a new project. it is now seems more difficult for new
projects to be created at apache (the test is subjective and democratic
so this is an observation not a rule). it is much easier to create a new
project offshore and then bring it in through the incubator. so, the
scope issue would (for practical purposes) probably require them to go
through the incubator.

- robert



-
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: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Noel J. Bergman
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

 Noel J. Bergman wrote:
  projects coming into the ASF go through the Incubator.  New things
  started entirely within the ASF do not, currently.
 Then there is no NEED for a sandbox.

As you know, the sandbox predates the Incubator, and AIUI, the Sandbox
exists so as to allow experiments without polluting the respository in such
manner that would confuse the public and ourselves about what is real and
what is play.  There may be other ways in to achieve that goal.

--- Noel


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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-09 Thread Andrew C. Oliver
Yes.  A lot of things predate the incubator.  I'm not opposed to say an 
HTTPD-sandbox for experimental HTTPD related stuff.
I'm not opposed to a POI-sandbox (indeed we have one but call it 
scratchpad) for POI-related stuff.  However Jakarta-sandbox is 
SCOPELESS.  Go have a scopeless sandbox on sourceforge IMO.  If you want 
to start a whole NEW project then do that in the incubator IMO.


Noel J. Bergman wrote:

Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


Noel J. Bergman wrote:

projects coming into the ASF go through the Incubator.  New things
started entirely within the ASF do not, currently.

Then there is no NEED for a sandbox.


As you know, the sandbox predates the Incubator, and AIUI, the Sandbox
exists so as to allow experiments without polluting the respository in such
manner that would confuse the public and ourselves about what is real and
what is play.  There may be other ways in to achieve that goal.






--- Noel


-
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: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-08 Thread Andrew C. Oliver

-1 on these points

1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.  All 
new projects must go through the incubator and endure.  Commons sandbox 
was created prior to the incubator.
2. No to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it is a MEGA-list for all of 
Jakarta.  The commons list is horrible and I get enough email.  There is 
no technical advantage to one mega list for all software.  Most problems 
are NOT oversite problems/discussions.
3. -1 to the form of this proposal which seems overly coarse grained or 
not nearly detailed (I'm not sure which)


-Andy

Henri Yandell wrote:



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:


On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:

On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:

  * Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
  * Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
  * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
  * Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.



What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, 
as long

as it's written in or for Java?


And who is expected to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Those who want to? :)

I imagine those working on sandbox components at the moment, plus a 
handful of people who tend to subscribe to such lists.


Out of interest - if we take a list with N mails a day, and have 2 
lists with N/2 mails a day, is that something you'd view as more 
painful or the same amount of pain?


I know that when subscribing to Jakarta subprojects I'm not interested 
in as a coder, I subscribe to both the -user and -dev and funnel them 
both into the same folder. For my level of interest it's just 
[EMAIL PROTECTED], not ecs-xxx@ etc. So I'm probably answering more pain 
to the above, but I've got a simple solution that hides the minor pain 
increase.


Hen

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





--
Andrew C. Oliver
SuperLink Software, Inc.

Java to Excel using POI
http://www.superlinksoftware.com/services/poi
Commercial support including features added/implemented, bugs fixed.



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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-08 Thread Rainer Klute
Am Freitag, den 07.04.2006, 19:17 -0400 schrieb Henri Yandell:
 Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
 
   * Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
   * Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
   * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   * Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
   * Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.
 
 
 [ ] +1
 [X] -1

I vote -1 because I do not want my mailbox to be flooded with piles of
mails about stuff I don't care about. I'd like to solicit only those
pieces I am interested in.

Best regards
Rainer Klute

   Rainer Klute IT-Consulting GmbH
  Dipl.-Inform.
  Rainer Klute E-Mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  K├Ârner Grund 24  Telefon: +49 172 2324824
D-44143 Dortmund   Telefax: +49 231 5349423

Public key fingerprint: E4E4386515EE0BED5C162FBB5343461584B5A42E


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-08 Thread Henri Yandell



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


-1 on these points

1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.  All new 
projects must go through the incubator and endure.  Commons sandbox was 
created prior to the incubator.


Nope, all new communities must go through the incubator, not all new 
projects (well, components).


2. No to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it is a MEGA-list for all of Jakarta.  The 
commons list is horrible and I get enough email.  There is no technical 
advantage to one mega list for all software.  Most problems are NOT oversite 
problems/discussions.


Is it the naming? How about [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Are you suggesting that there should be a mailing list per component in 
the sandbox? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc?


dev@ was in Stephen's original proposal on Commons - so not something I'm 
personally tied to. It's not tied to my 'one-community' mantra, though I 
suspect it might appear that way :)


3. -1 to the form of this proposal which seems overly coarse grained or not 
nearly detailed (I'm not sure which)


Sounds about right - response so far suggests I need a lot more in the 
proposal - and it's probably better to go with the JLC vote next so the 
sandbox issue would be more obvious (things would be going from Commons 
Sandbox to JLC grouping).


Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-08 Thread Henri Yandell



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Rainer Klute wrote:


Am Freitag, den 07.04.2006, 19:17 -0400 schrieb Henri Yandell:

Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:

  * Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
  * Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
  * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
  * Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.


[ ] +1
[X] -1


I vote -1 because I do not want my mailbox to be flooded with piles of
mails about stuff I don't care about. I'd like to solicit only those
pieces I am interested in.


That's why it didn't say general@ :)

Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-08 Thread Andrew C. Oliver

Henri Yandell wrote:



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:


-1 on these points

1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.  All 
new projects must go through the incubator and endure.  Commons 
sandbox was created prior to the incubator.


Nope, all new communities must go through the incubator, not all new 
projects (well, components).


So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go through 
the incubator just YOUR

incubator.

Basically misery loves company so I think if the same sin buys me
purgatory, I'd like to see you there.  Even if you call your project a 
component.




2. No to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if it is a MEGA-list for all of 
Jakarta.  The commons list is horrible and I get enough email.  There 
is no technical advantage to one mega list for all software.  Most 
problems are NOT oversite problems/discussions.


Is it the naming? How about [EMAIL PROTECTED]



clears point 2 but does nothing for one.  The name dev certainly implies 
something that you say you

do not intend.

Are you suggesting that there should be a mailing list per component in 
the sandbox? [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc?


dev@ was in Stephen's original proposal on Commons - so not something 
I'm personally tied to. It's not tied to my 'one-community' mantra, 
though I suspect it might appear that way :)




Booo.

3. -1 to the form of this proposal which seems overly coarse grained 
or not nearly detailed (I'm not sure which)


Sounds about right - response so far suggests I need a lot more in the 
proposal - and it's probably better to go with the JLC vote next so the 
sandbox issue would be more obvious (things would be going from Commons 
Sandbox to JLC grouping).




So far that seems like more commons mess.  Thus far I've failed to see 
what makes it not more of the same (aka commons).


-Andy


Hen

-
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: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-08 Thread Nathan Bubna
On 4/8/06, Andrew C. Oliver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Henri Yandell wrote:
 
 
  On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
 
  -1 on these points
 
  1. There should not be an escape from the pain of the incubator.  All
  new projects must go through the incubator and endure.  Commons
  sandbox was created prior to the incubator.
 
  Nope, all new communities must go through the incubator, not all new
  projects (well, components).

 So basically if I call my project a component I don't have to go through
 the incubator just YOUR
 incubator.

 Basically misery loves company so I think if the same sin buys me
 purgatory, I'd like to see you there.  Even if you call your project a
 component.

So, if i have an idea for a new group of code (avoiding component vs
project terminology for the moment) that would reasonably fit within
the jakarta mission (whatever you think that might be), you think i
should have to go through the incubator to start developing it? 
sounds like a great plan to shut down innovation from within the
jakarta community or else force it to go underground and hide out
within existing groups of code.

maybe i'm wrong on this, but i always understood the incubation
process to be for bringing in outside
groups-of-code/communities-of-developers into the ASF.If some
Jakarta developers want to try and start a new group-of-code that
would fit in Jakarta, a sandbox seems like a great place to play
around with it and develop interest.

If, on the other hand, i've been developing some group-of-code over at
sourceforge, with oversight and community happening there, and at some
later point i want to bring that into Jakarta, then incubation makes
perfect sense to me.

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-07 Thread Martin Cooper
On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:

   * Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
   * Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
   * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
   * Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
   * Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.


What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, as long
as it's written in or for Java?

[ ] +1
 [X] -1


This just seems like too big of a can of worms to me.

--
Martin Cooper


Vote to last no shorter than a week.

 Hen

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




Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-07 Thread Simon Kitching
On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:
 On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 
  Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:
 
* Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
* Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
* Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
* Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
* Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.
 
 
 What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, as long
 as it's written in or for Java?

And who is expected to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]




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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-07 Thread Henri Yandell



On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Martin Cooper wrote:


On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:

  * Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
  * Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
  * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
  * Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.



What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, as long
as it's written in or for Java?


My fault, I thought we'd had a long thread on this before so didn't do 
much explaining.


The same as Commons Sandbox contains potential Commons components, Jakarta 
Sandbox would be much the same but contain potential Jakarta components. 
Maybe I'm jumping the gun.


One of the reasons this was brought up again in last months naval 
introspection threads was that if we have a Jakarta Language Components 
grouping (ie: part of Commons moves out), then the Commons sandbox would 
no longer be applicable. Plus it allows us to bring the Taglibs sandbox 
plus it gives us a nice home for the Taglibs sandbox to be dormantized to.



[ ] +1

[X] -1



This just seems like too big of a can of worms to me.


It's the same can of worms as Jakarta as a whole, so I'm not sure if we 
can view this as being worrisome and the general scope of Jakarta as not 
worrisome. I'm probably jumping the gun - next vote maybe should have been 
to have restricted the scope of Jakarta rather than promote the sandbox 
up.


Hen

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



Re: [VOTE] Jakarta Sandbox

2006-04-07 Thread Henri Yandell



On Sat, 8 Apr 2006, Simon Kitching wrote:


On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 16:28 -0700, Martin Cooper wrote:

On 4/7/06, Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Calling a vote to create a Jakarta Sandbox; which entails:

  * Move Jakarta Commons Sandbox to Jakarta Sandbox
  * Migrate Jakarta Taglibs Sandbox into Jakarta Sandbox
  * Create development mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
  * Create wiki (and migrate wiki bits from j-c-s/j-t-s)
  * Jakarta Sandbox to initially use the Commons sandbox processes.



What would be the constraints on what could go in there? Anything, as long
as it's written in or for Java?


And who is expected to subscribe to [EMAIL PROTECTED]


Those who want to? :)

I imagine those working on sandbox components at the moment, plus a 
handful of people who tend to subscribe to such lists.


Out of interest - if we take a list with N mails a day, and have 2 lists 
with N/2 mails a day, is that something you'd view as more painful or the 
same amount of pain?


I know that when subscribing to Jakarta subprojects I'm not interested in 
as a coder, I subscribe to both the -user and -dev and funnel them both 
into the same folder. For my level of interest it's just [EMAIL PROTECTED], not 
ecs-xxx@ etc. So I'm probably answering more pain to the above, but I've 
got a simple solution that hides the minor pain increase.


Hen

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