Scott Eade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>As I see it the following issues are at hand:
>* Decide on a VP and fill in the blank on the proposal. I will gladly
>support anyone else that nominates themselves for this role, but will
>nominate myself in the absence of any other offers.
I think that you would make a good fit, because you are really active
in the project (somethat that I can not say for me) and you are a
member. A VP does not need to be a member (think Henri and Jakarta)
but it causes some awkward things. So I fully support you here. :-)
This is not a lifetime post anyway, e.g. Brian (McCallister) offered
the DB chair after one year to allow another PMC member to rotate in.
>-- Possibility of developing into an Umbrella project. We are not at
>present considering bringing anything else into the Turbine fold. The
>strongest argument in this area would be the Fulcrum could spiral out of
>control. The fact of the matter is that while the Fulcrum components
>target any implementation of the Avalon framework, for all intents and
>purposes they exist primarily to support Turbine so as to enable updates
>to the components to be decoupled from Turbine itself. While there may
>be exceptions to this (Siegfried?) they are not so widely used that
>there is any risk of this getting out of control.
IMHO the whole Fulcrum issue gets more and more moot. Avalon has
obviously failed, Excalibur is intentionally kept at a very low
profile and just lost two of its biggest supporters (James to Spring
AFAIK and Cocoon to OSGi), so IMHO it would be good to clarify here
and say "Fulcrum is a repository of Turbine related components based
on Avalon/Excalibur technology". We should make this clear in the TLP
proposal because the board will surely ask about it.
>-- Future plans. While we do occasionally discuss this, we should take
>advantage of the Wiki to document this a little better. Again, the
+1
>reality is that with limited time available we are progressing only
>slowly towards our next Turbine release. I do not however feel that
>this is a problem - progress is being made and fixes are being
>backported to the 2.3 branch as necessary.
Progress is done by user support and developer needs. If the amount of
request and patches from the user community is not that high, slow
progress is ok. Remember this is not a commercial project with release
dates and deadlines.
>So let's quickly resolve the VP question, we will then be in a position
>to ping the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list informing them of our plan (this should
>hopefully pull in a few more votes and possibly PMC members) and to kick
>off a formal vote.
The Jakarta PMC does not need to be that much involved and it does not
need to vote on it IMHO. It is obvious courtesy to keep them in the
loop about the TLP plans, but in the end, there is a resolution to the
board about establishing the Apache Turbine TLP. What we should
discuss with the PMC is, which committers that go to Turbine want to
keep their PMC seats / commit rights on Jakarta. I think all Velocity
people kept this (once you have a permission, never give it back. ;-) )
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
"Save the cheerleader. Save the world."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
