[spinnaker] proposal: move spinnaker to xml-xerces/proposals /spinnaker

[ru...@us.ibm.com]

Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
>
> All Tomcat, Xerces and Xalan didn't start as Apache projects and
> their development community was _imposed_ and did not emerge
> from the community of volunteers.
>
> For Tomcat, the Sun people were working in the open like they
> normally did before the deal: they just had to show their results
> on a public CVS every day.
>
> Then some people got really frustrated by that and started to take
> over,  cleaning up, doing things, answering questions, volunteering
> for release  coordination, blah, blah. That guy was Sam Ruby from
> IBM. That guy started distributed development for the tomcat team:
> they could not have a morning meeting to decide something, they
> needed to contact Sam, then others.
>
> In both Xerces and Xalan, this hasn't (yet) happened.

Thanks for the kind words.  I'll also take my share of responsibility for
this - I helped prod Duncan into action.  Comments were made about the lack
of volunteers outside of IBM/Lotus for Xerces and Xalan and I indicated
that if somebody saw this as an issue, they should get involved.

I do see the parallel to Craig's catalina - with one difference.  See
below.

> Is it wrong to give it another codename? probably.

I disagree.  Catalina

> Is it wrong to place it in another CVS module? probably.

Yes, it is wrong.  Nobody, even an ASF member, should be able to
unilaterally create a new project without giving others an ability to vote
on the issue.

> Is it wrong to go off without asking first? probably.

Not clear - It is often easier to get forgiveness than permission...

So, let me start off another option:

> 1) we forget about spinnaker

No, lets just move it into xml-xerces/proposals/spinnaker.  This parallels
jakarta-tomcat/proposals/catalina.

> 2) we create a new CVS branch under xml-xerces where Xerces2
> should  reside

-1.  This is not Xerces2, it is a proposal.  It has to fight for the right
to exist based on merit.

Also, a separate directory structure is preferred.  Branches are hard to
merge; a separate directory can be used to track the changes.

> 3) in case, we create a xerces2-dev mail list

Spinnaker-dev perhaps, but I prefer the convention of using [spinnaker] on
the xercesj dev list, to maximize cross polination.

- Sam Ruby

Re: [spinnaker] proposal: move spinnaker to xml-xerces/proposals/spinnaker

[Rajiv Mordani <Ra...@eng.sun.com>]

--
:wq

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, N. Sean Timm wrote:

> From: <ru...@us.ibm.com>
> > So, let me start off another option:
> >
> > > 1) we forget about spinnaker
> >
> > No, lets just move it into xml-xerces/proposals/spinnaker.  This parallels
> > jakarta-tomcat/proposals/catalina.
> >
> The difference being that Xerces has multiple language implementations where
> Tomcat has only one.  I'd rather see it fall under
> xml-xerces/java/proposals/spinnaker personally.  Any Java-based proposals
> would therefore fall under xml-xerces/java/proposals/[codename] and allow
> other language implementations the freedom to do the same (they could even
> use the same code names if they wanted...as evil as that would be.  :)  )

+1 on this. I had also suggested this earlier.

> 
> > > 2) we create a new CVS branch under xml-xerces where Xerces2
> > > should  reside
> >
> > -1.  This is not Xerces2, it is a proposal.  It has to fight for the right
> > to exist based on merit.
> >
> > Also, a separate directory structure is preferred.  Branches are hard to
> > merge; a separate directory can be used to track the changes.
> 
> I agree with Sam.  Not only that, but this isn't a branch.  It's a brand new
> proposal.  It's a total rewrite (that might possibly borrow some code).
> Right?  That's not what CVS branches are for...  Also, a branch has very
> minimal exposure to those who aren't aware of it.  Nothing could kill a
> proposal faster than making it completely inaccessible to those who weren't
> involved when it was created (ie. give it a separate mailing list and code
> branch) because I don't think these proposals should be featured on the
> xml.apache.org site anywhere, so their only chance of exposure is within the
> existing Xerces mailing list and code base.  (I hope I'm making sense...)
> :)
> >
> > > 3) in case, we create a xerces2-dev mail list
> >
> > Spinnaker-dev perhaps, but I prefer the convention of using [spinnaker] on
> > the xercesj dev list, to maximize cross polination.
> >
> I, too, would rather see all communication occur on the xercesj dev list.
> Please...*please* don't make me have to deal with another Apache mailing
> list.  :)

Again +1 use [spinnaker] as part of the subject. That way people not
interested can setup filters ;).

- Rajiv


> 
> - Sean T.
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org
> 

Re: [spinnaker] proposal: move spinnaker to xml-xerces/proposals/spinnaker

["N. Sean Timm" <st...@mailgo.com>]

From: <ru...@us.ibm.com>
> So, let me start off another option:
>
> > 1) we forget about spinnaker
>
> No, lets just move it into xml-xerces/proposals/spinnaker.  This parallels
> jakarta-tomcat/proposals/catalina.
>
The difference being that Xerces has multiple language implementations where
Tomcat has only one.  I'd rather see it fall under
xml-xerces/java/proposals/spinnaker personally.  Any Java-based proposals
would therefore fall under xml-xerces/java/proposals/[codename] and allow
other language implementations the freedom to do the same (they could even
use the same code names if they wanted...as evil as that would be.  :)  )

> > 2) we create a new CVS branch under xml-xerces where Xerces2
> > should  reside
>
> -1.  This is not Xerces2, it is a proposal.  It has to fight for the right
> to exist based on merit.
>
> Also, a separate directory structure is preferred.  Branches are hard to
> merge; a separate directory can be used to track the changes.

I agree with Sam.  Not only that, but this isn't a branch.  It's a brand new
proposal.  It's a total rewrite (that might possibly borrow some code).
Right?  That's not what CVS branches are for...  Also, a branch has very
minimal exposure to those who aren't aware of it.  Nothing could kill a
proposal faster than making it completely inaccessible to those who weren't
involved when it was created (ie. give it a separate mailing list and code
branch) because I don't think these proposals should be featured on the
xml.apache.org site anywhere, so their only chance of exposure is within the
existing Xerces mailing list and code base.  (I hope I'm making sense...)
:)
>
> > 3) in case, we create a xerces2-dev mail list
>
> Spinnaker-dev perhaps, but I prefer the convention of using [spinnaker] on
> the xercesj dev list, to maximize cross polination.
>
I, too, would rather see all communication occur on the xercesj dev list.
Please...*please* don't make me have to deal with another Apache mailing
list.  :)

- Sean T.