On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:43:43AM -0800, Aaron Bannert wrote: > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 11:17:26AM -0800, Greg Stein wrote: > > I can definitely do it, but Aaron's being a butthead with a -1 saying it > > doesn't fit the Commons' goals :-) > > Naw, that's not true, I'm not saying it doesn't fit the goals. I'm > saying we don't have goals to fit.
Yah, I know. But you're saying serf can't / shouldn't move because of a lack of goals. So what is missing from Commons' goals? We've got a number of items decided, and it seems that serf fits into those items. IOW, what is the delta from here to >there< such that you feel Commons has a well (enough) defined goals/mission? > > Aaron: if you say "no", then what still > > needs to happen to define those goals? > > That's easy: > > 1) APR needs to finalize its mission Screw the APR mission. As Ryan pointed out, the serf project has decided independently that it wants to move. Feel free to discuss the APR mission with serf as a measuring stick, but the APR mission no longer has any bearing on serf's move. > 2) Commmons needs to finalize its mission (or have something final enough > to start accepting things like Serf) Take a look at the current STATUS doc. Vote where you haven't, and if the mission isn't finalized enough, then please clarify. I don't know what actions to take to move towards clarity. > > Help out here, so we can get > > component adoption going. > > I'd like to see Commons create an "HTTP Utilities Component" and figure > out what that can mean. This is your idea, so go ahead and push it :-) I'd say "go ahead and shift serf" and when you have your concept defined, then we wrap it around serf. IOW, does the definition need to impede the operational aspects of moving the serf codebase? Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
