As a user and someone who occassional submits bug reports and patches, I don't see any difference to being a TLP. When I went looking for a content manager 3 years ago, I found slide using google and browsing the Apache site. I can't imagine choosing a CM without a lot of research and the difference in visibility between Jakarta and TLP is miniscule. For myself, I have been trying to figure out how to contribute the limited amount of time I have right now towards getting the project moving again and I would much rather this time went towards fixes and features than administrative tasks.
-----Original Message----- From: Henri Yandell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:09 PM To: Slide Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: TLP... :) Effectively you're saying "we're too inactive to be a TLP". Which is what a lot of us are saying, and makes sense. As the more active subprojects have gone TLP so Jakarta has evolved this way. There's an unspoken assumption that it's better to have low activity as a Jakarta subproject than it is as a TLP, the Jakarta community as a whole helps make up for things. This is where we're now wrong I think, the Jakarta community is increasingly a disjoint set of subgroups, which again makes sense as the active subprojects contained a lot of the crossover activity. As we're increasingly disjoint, we're not able to make up for things and the idea of being in Jakarta actually becomes a disadvantage not an advantage because things are more hidden. An obvious solution is to create more of a Jakarta community, which I think Commons can provide, but Slide (and some others) don't fit with this. So I think TLP for Slide makes sense. Activity is an important question to get somewhat solved on the way, someone needs to be the chair (which isn't a huge job for a tight and focused TLP), but other than that Slide could be doing much the same it is doing now as a TLP and the increased visibility might help get more interest. SVN restructuring is definitely perpendicular to a TLP move, unless you think you'll be creating a subcomponent that doesn't make sense in a Slide TLP and ought to go elsewhere. Even then it's not a biggy, we can take care of it later. Hen On 12/13/05, Daniel Florey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as I can tell there is not much developer activity in the Slide > project at the moment. As Oliver resigned as release manager there is > nobody pushing the 2.2 release. > The SVN should be restructured as once discussed. I don't know if I'll > personally find the time to work on the project and do things that I > have in mind for a long time. > Before thinking about moving Slide to TLP we should sort these things out. > But in general I think it's still a good idea. > Cheers, > Daniel > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > rg] Im Auftrag von Henri Yandell > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Dezember 2005 00:41 > > An: Slide Developers Mailing List > > Betreff: TLP... :) > > > > A fair while back, the plan was for Slide to move to TLP. Where is > > that nowadays? What reasons are there for it being bad to go ahead > > and push on with that? > > > > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
