End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[cm...@yahoo.com]

Ok, I had enough. Ted - if you change the proposal please be kind and
remove my name from the list. 

 

Costin

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> > workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> > public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> > Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> > subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> > rest of their codebase."
> 
> What about:
> 
> "The sponsoring project will maintain, support the distributed component
> along with their codebase"
> 
> If 2 projects share a component it may be better to have a single point of
> distribution for the component.
> ( they may decide not to place it in commons, but keep it an
> agora component )

I think then one of the subprojects might want to serve as point. 

Or, if this takes off, Agora can be proposed on its own, with a separate
CVS.

But a fundamental groundrule is that if you're working on something in
the shared CVS, and release it through another subproject, then what you
do with the codebase is not the concern of the Commons subproject. This
would hold true for any development model people want to try, including
Agora.

-Ted.

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> > workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> > public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> > Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> > subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> > rest of their codebase."
> 
> What about:
> 
> "The sponsoring project will maintain, support the distributed component
> along with their codebase"
> 
> If 2 projects share a component it may be better to have a single point of
> distribution for the component.
> ( they may decide not to place it in commons, but keep it an
> agora component )

I think then one of the subprojects might want to serve as point. 

Or, if this takes off, Agora can be proposed on its own, with a separate
CVS.

But a fundamental groundrule is that if you're working on something in
the shared CVS, and release it through another subproject, then what you
do with the codebase is not the concern of the Commons subproject. This
would hold true for any development model people want to try, including
Agora.

-Ted.

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[cm...@yahoo.com]

Please don't missunderstand me - I will probably participate in the
sandbox and contribute code. 

But I have too much work to do and this debate is eating too much time -
and I don't think it's worth it.

I don't want to be part of the "commons" commiters if this is another
tribe who decide what's right and wrong for the components. I think the
projects need to have ( and feel they have ) a lot of control over the
components in order to participate. 

The concern is that the "commons" will be involved in decisions without
having the right knowledge about it - the subprojects that are sharing
some code or developing it in the common place are the best to judge the
quality and the only that can provide the right support. 

The concern is that this will turn into another round of debeate each time
someone will decide that a component is too "J2EE-ish" or duplicates
another component or they don't like something else. And the projects will
prefer to avoid this and keep the component private.

( don't tell me this will not happen - look at the current thread where
most people that are interested in developing components
jakarta-style argue pasionately about what should happen in the agora 
side, and give all kind of arguments about why this shouldn't be allowed ) 

It's already difficult to go along with another project and share
something - even if you have a clear common goal in a component  - add a
group of even more diverse people and put them in charge of deciding
what's good for the shared component.  

So that's my concern - that we'll keep fighting about what's right and
wrong instead of letting the jakarta projects that are supposed to share
decide what's good or bad for themself. 

> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> rest of their codebase."

What about:

"The sponsoring project will maintain, support the distributed component
along with their codebase"

If 2 projects share a component it may be better to have a single point of
distribution for the component. 
( they may decide not to place it in commons, but keep it an
agora component )


Costin

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[cm...@yahoo.com]

Please don't missunderstand me - I will probably participate in the
sandbox and contribute code. 

But I have too much work to do and this debate is eating too much time -
and I don't think it's worth it.

I don't want to be part of the "commons" commiters if this is another
tribe who decide what's right and wrong for the components. I think the
projects need to have ( and feel they have ) a lot of control over the
components in order to participate. 

The concern is that the "commons" will be involved in decisions without
having the right knowledge about it - the subprojects that are sharing
some code or developing it in the common place are the best to judge the
quality and the only that can provide the right support. 

The concern is that this will turn into another round of debeate each time
someone will decide that a component is too "J2EE-ish" or duplicates
another component or they don't like something else. And the projects will
prefer to avoid this and keep the component private.

( don't tell me this will not happen - look at the current thread where
most people that are interested in developing components
jakarta-style argue pasionately about what should happen in the agora 
side, and give all kind of arguments about why this shouldn't be allowed ) 

It's already difficult to go along with another project and share
something - even if you have a clear common goal in a component  - add a
group of even more diverse people and put them in charge of deciding
what's good for the shared component.  

So that's my concern - that we'll keep fighting about what's right and
wrong instead of letting the jakarta projects that are supposed to share
decide what's good or bad for themself. 

> "20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
> workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
> public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
> Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
> subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
> rest of their codebase."

What about:

"The sponsoring project will maintain, support the distributed component
along with their codebase"

If 2 projects share a component it may be better to have a single point of
distribution for the component. 
( they may decide not to place it in commons, but keep it an
agora component )


Costin

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ok, I had enough. Ted - if you change the proposal please be kind and
> remove my name from the list.

That's your prerogative, Costin. 

Though I honestly believe we have tried to make room for what you
yourself have characterized as the "minority" opinion.

I also honestly believe that the following represents what you have been
saying would happen with Agora code. 

"20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
rest of their codebase."

I would trust you to do the Right Thing, but this CVS repository will be
open to * all * the Jakarta committers, and so we must be sure the
guideline is clear.

-Ted.

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[Ted Husted <ne...@husted.com>]

cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ok, I had enough. Ted - if you change the proposal please be kind and
> remove my name from the list.

That's your prerogative, Costin. 

Though I honestly believe we have tried to make room for what you
yourself have characterized as the "minority" opinion.

I also honestly believe that the following represents what you have been
saying would happen with Agora code. 

"20. A CVS repository will be available to all Jakarta committers as a
workplace for new packages or other projects. Before release to the
public, code or documentation developed here must be accepted into the
Commons or sponsored by another Jakarta subproject. The sponsoring
subproject(s) will distribute the code or documentation along with the
rest of their codebase."

I would trust you to do the Right Thing, but this CVS repository will be
open to * all * the Jakarta committers, and so we must be sure the
guideline is clear.

-Ted.

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[David Weinrich <dw...@home.com>]

I'm sorry I didn't include you in the earlier message to Ignacio,
everything I said there about Ignacio being necessary for this project
to succeed goes for you as well. Your input has kept this project on track
and helped us avoid some serious future problems, we need your viewpoint,
even if we might not always agree, and especially when we ( okay I'm
talking about myself here ) are too dense to get the point the first few
times around.  And again, I say 'please reconsider'.

Now is as good a time as any to put the brakes on and clarify this
together, and if what Craig states in his email is a correct
interpretation of your concerns then this *does* have to be
resolved/clarified. If what Craig stated isn't the right
interpretation of your concerns than I think it is even more
important that we keep hashing this out.

David

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Ok, I had enough. Ted - if you change the proposal please be kind and
> remove my name from the list.
>
>
>
> Costin
>
>
>

Re: End - Re: [VOTE] "prop02"

[David Weinrich <dw...@home.com>]

I'm sorry I didn't include you in the earlier message to Ignacio,
everything I said there about Ignacio being necessary for this project
to succeed goes for you as well. Your input has kept this project on track
and helped us avoid some serious future problems, we need your viewpoint,
even if we might not always agree, and especially when we ( okay I'm
talking about myself here ) are too dense to get the point the first few
times around.  And again, I say 'please reconsider'.

Now is as good a time as any to put the brakes on and clarify this
together, and if what Craig states in his email is a correct
interpretation of your concerns then this *does* have to be
resolved/clarified. If what Craig stated isn't the right
interpretation of your concerns than I think it is even more
important that we keep hashing this out.

David

On Thu, 15 Mar 2001 cmanolache@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> Ok, I had enough. Ted - if you change the proposal please be kind and
> remove my name from the list.
>
>
>
> Costin
>
>
>