You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@jakarta.apache.org by Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com> on 2003/12/08 04:29:16 UTC
jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
> list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
>
> Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
> each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
> fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
>
> A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.
+1 to jakarta-wide karma.
It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe
instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
jakarta-bugs
jakarta-announce
jakarta-dev
jakarta-pmc
jakarta-ideas
jakarta-site
or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 8 Dec 2003, at 04:20, Phil Steitz wrote:
<snip>
> Then maybe
>> instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
>> jakarta-bugs
>> jakarta-announce
>> jakarta-dev
>> jakarta-pmc
>> jakarta-ideas
>> jakarta-site
>> or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
>> question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
>
> I understand that the oversight role of the PMC has to include all of
> Jakarta and I agree that some form of list aggregation/digesting might
> need to happen to make this practical. I don't think that combining
> all of the lists is the right way to do it though. This would
> certainly be a pain for users and contributors who may be interested
> in only a small number of projects. One way to attack the problem
> might be to have PMC members who are committers on the different
> Jakarta projects share the responsibility of maintaining list digests
> for periodic (weekly?) review by the full PMC and/or alerting the full
> PMC of any issues that require immediate attention.
>
> I guess the alternative would be for all of us to subscribe to all of
> the lists and take up speed reading ;-)
i'd suggest that all new pmc members try subscribing to a number of
jakarta lists that they are not committers for. ideally, subscribe to
all dev lists and see just how many posts there are even (if you stay
on them all only for a few days). it gives a good sense of perspective.
if every new pmc member decided to subscribe to just one or two extra
lists, then we'd be along way towards solving our current problems with
demonstrating oversight (by spreading the load more evenly, we'll
eliminate single points of failure).
i'd be interested to see the current coverage (in terms of pmc members
subscribed to jakarta dev lists).
> Apologies if this is old ground. I am new to the PMC.
it's probably old ground but i'm not sure that we've come up with any
good solutions yet :)
questions and ideas will therefore be gratefully received :)
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 8 Dec 2003, at 11:10, Christopher Lenz wrote:
> Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
>> Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the
>> httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient
>> developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the
>> other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic?
>
> I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be
> rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to
> complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing
> list, so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being
> backed by a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none
> of the HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components,
> IIRC).
IIRC the httpclient committers volunteered after a lot of strong-arming
from the rest of the commons. IMHO this was a big mistake. it would
have been much better if httpclient had remained on the same list (for
as long as it had remained in the commons).
> In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by
> now, but that's a different topic altogether :-)
+1 (but AFAIK no one's proposed it)
(i suspect that httpclient would have been promoted already had we not
made the misguided decision to split off a separate mailing list.)
i've always thought that apache commons would be a perfect fit for
httpclient...
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by Christopher Lenz <cm...@gmx.de>.
Am 08.12.2003 um 09:03 schrieb Stefan Bodewig:
> Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the
> httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient
> developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the
> other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic?
I think it was a little of both. HttpClient was and continues to be
rather heavy in traffic for a commons component, so some started to
complain. The developers were okay with splitting off the mailing list,
so it happened. I think this was also due to HttpClient being backed by
a community separate from the rest of the Commons (i.e. none of the
HttpClient contributors is working on other Commons components, IIRC).
In my opinion, HttpClient would deserve promotion out of Commons by
now, but that's a different topic altogether :-)
Cheers,
Chris
--
Christopher Lenz
/=/ cmlenz at gmx.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by Stefan Bodewig <bo...@apache.org>.
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003, Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com> wrote:
> It would be very noisy, indeed.
Szre.
> Here are some stats from October (from message counts displayed at
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com)
>
> struts tomcat commons
> user 3115 2908 375
> dev 759 1131 2112
I guess you could remove half of struts user if we added a
jakarta-friday list 8-)
Seriously, combining the user lists is not desirable at all IMHO, as
our users probably don't care too much for the projects they don't
use.
Let's look at the dev lists using nagoya's eyebrowse installation
and looking at the number of mails in Nevember 2003:
Alexandria 3
BCEL 12
BSF 8
Cactus 173
Commons 2061
Commons-HTTP-Client 379
ECS 0
Jetspeed 283
JMeter 276
Gump 292 (*)
Log4J 146
Lucene 164
ORO 3
Pluto 112
POI 213
Regexp 21
Slide 724
Struts 431
Taglibs 35
Tapestry 110
Tomcat 982
Turbine 271
Turbine-JCS 10
Velocity 244
I think there are more lists than that.
(*) using MARC as Gump is not listed in eyebrowse.
OK, the total is 6953, more than three times the traffic of
commons-dev. This is unless we'd really split the lists into separate
lists for bug reports, commits and ideas (I'm not sure I'd like that
idea).
Can anybody with a better memory for commons than I have recap why the
httpclient traffic list has been split off? Did the httpclient
developers want a list of their own or have the developers for the
other commons components been overwhelmed by httpclient traffic?
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@steitz.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
>
>
>>Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
>>list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
>>
>>Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
>>each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
>>fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
>>
>>A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.
>
>
> +1 to jakarta-wide karma.
>
> It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
> estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be.
It would be very noisy, indeed. Here are some stats from October (from
message counts displayed at http://marc.theaimsgroup.com)
struts tomcat commons
user 3115 2908 375
dev 759 1131 2112
Then maybe
> instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
>
> jakarta-bugs
> jakarta-announce
> jakarta-dev
> jakarta-pmc
> jakarta-ideas
> jakarta-site
>
> or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
> question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I understand that the oversight role of the PMC has to include all of
Jakarta and I agree that some form of list aggregation/digesting might
need to happen to make this practical. I don't think that combining all
of the lists is the right way to do it though. This would certainly be a
pain for users and contributors who may be interested in only a small
number of projects. One way to attack the problem might be to have PMC
members who are committers on the different Jakarta projects share the
responsibility of maintaining list digests for periodic (weekly?) review
by the full PMC and/or alerting the full PMC of any issues that require
immediate attention.
I guess the alternative would be for all of us to subscribe to all of the
lists and take up speed reading ;-)
Apologies if this is old ground. I am new to the PMC.
Phil
>
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@blueyonder.co.uk>.
On 8 Dec 2003, at 21:07, Costin Manolache wrote:
> Henri Yandell wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
>>> Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have
>>> a single
>>> list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
>>>
>>> Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including
>>> releases of
>>> each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer
>>> is
>>> fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate
>>> karma.
>>>
>>> A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every
>>> subproject.
>> +1 to jakarta-wide karma.
>> It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
>> estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then
>> maybe
>> instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
>> jakarta-bugs
>> jakarta-announce
>> jakarta-dev
>> jakarta-pmc
>> jakarta-ideas
>> jakarta-site
>> or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
>> question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
>
> I don't see the relation between karma and mailing lists.
+1
> Jakarta does have 2 "global" lists ( jakarta-general and pmc ), and as
> many sub-project lists are needed. A subproject can create multiple
> lists if needed/wanted, like commons.
i think that multiple lists divide the community and cause problems
with oversight. my experience with jakarta commons is that a single
list helps to create a community spirit and multiple lists divide this
spirit. the avalon community are now strongly against multiple lists
and turbine has moved this way also. i've read posts from people in
both community expressing the opinion that multiple lists are
unhealthy.
> Each jakarta committer can be on as many lists as he wants. It would
> be good to keep track of what lists each PMC member is reading
> currently, or to do something similar with commons, where people add
> themself to
> a list of "active" people when they are involved with a component.
> This will also answer the question "who is monitoring this".
seems reasonable.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
>
>
>>Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
>>list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
>>
>>Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
>>each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
>>fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
>>
>>A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.
>
>
> +1 to jakarta-wide karma.
>
> It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
> estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe
> instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
>
> jakarta-bugs
> jakarta-announce
> jakarta-dev
> jakarta-pmc
> jakarta-ideas
> jakarta-site
>
> or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
> question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I don't see the relation between karma and mailing lists.
Jakarta does have 2 "global" lists ( jakarta-general and pmc ), and as
many sub-project lists are needed. A subproject can create multiple
lists if needed/wanted, like commons.
Each jakarta committer can be on as many lists as he wants. It would be
good to keep track of what lists each PMC member is reading currently,
or to do something similar with commons, where people add themself to
a list of "active" people when they are involved with a component. This
will also answer the question "who is monitoring this".
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: jakarta-future Was: [POLL] Future Of Turbine-JCS
Posted by Costin Manolache <cm...@yahoo.com>.
Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Costin Manolache wrote:
>
>
>>Or even better - since jakarta has a single PMC, it could also have a single
>>list of committers ( most of them in the single PMC ).
>>
>>Each PMC member can vote about any jakarta issue - including releases of
>>each sub-project, etc. If the distinction between pmc and committer is
>>fading, then I don't see why do we have to worry about separate karma.
>>
>>A start could be to have every PMC member have karma in every subproject.
>
>
> +1 to jakarta-wide karma.
>
> It'd be interesting to look at all the mail-traffic for Jakarta and
> estimate just how noisy a single project mail list would be. Then maybe
> instead of breaking it on code-base, we could break it on concept:
>
> jakarta-bugs
> jakarta-announce
> jakarta-dev
> jakarta-pmc
> jakarta-ideas
> jakarta-site
>
> or something. I'm assuming it'll be too noisy, but it is a logical
> question to ask based on Costin's ideas of opening things up.
I don't see the relation between karma and mailing lists.
Jakarta does have 2 "global" lists ( jakarta-general and pmc ), and as
many sub-project lists are needed. A subproject can create multiple
lists if needed/wanted, like commons.
Each jakarta committer can be on as many lists as he wants. It would be
good to keep track of what lists each PMC member is reading currently,
or to do something similar with commons, where people add themself to
a list of "active" people when they are involved with a component. This
will also answer the question "who is monitoring this".
Costin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org