You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@camel.apache.org by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/05 22:12:34 UTC
[DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
that it should aim to be a TLP now.
Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
will be and find a PMC chair.
Help and feedback welcomed !
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Claus Ibsen <cl...@gmail.com>.
+1 on both as well
/Claus Ibsen
Apache Camel Committer
Blog: http://davsclaus.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 on both, I think this is the right way to go.
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> decide what the PMC list
>>>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm... maybe I'm not allowed to discuss this bit cause I'm not on the
>>>> ActiveMQ PMC ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense.. It's important we clarify all the points in the proposal.
>>>
>>> I think the easiest way to build the initial PMC will be ask for
>>> volunteers from the existing ActiveMQ PMC to step up to be on the new
>>> Camel PMC. Then ask the new PMC to nominate a chair from the
>>> community. Get the TLP done and have the PMC vote in new PMC members
>>> in the normal Apache way.
>>>
>>
>> Oh we would need to do a similar thing for the committer list..
>> pollthe ActiveMQ committers to see which ones want to join the Camel
>> TLP as committers.
>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Hiram
>>>
>>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>>
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://open.iona.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
+1 on both, I think this is the right way to go.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> decide what the PMC list
>>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm... maybe I'm not allowed to discuss this bit cause I'm not on the
>>> ActiveMQ PMC ;)
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense.. It's important we clarify all the points in the proposal.
>>
>> I think the easiest way to build the initial PMC will be ask for
>> volunteers from the existing ActiveMQ PMC to step up to be on the new
>> Camel PMC. Then ask the new PMC to nominate a chair from the
>> community. Get the TLP done and have the PMC vote in new PMC members
>> in the normal Apache way.
>>
>
> Oh we would need to do a similar thing for the committer list..
> pollthe ActiveMQ committers to see which ones want to join the Camel
> TLP as committers.
>
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>>> ------------------------
>>>> Open Source SOA
>>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jon
>>>
>>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Hiram
>>
>> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>>
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://open.iona.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> Open Source SOA
> http://open.iona.com
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com> wrote:
>>
>>> decide what the PMC list
>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... maybe I'm not allowed to discuss this bit cause I'm not on the
>> ActiveMQ PMC ;)
>>
>>
>
> Nonsense.. It's important we clarify all the points in the proposal.
>
> I think the easiest way to build the initial PMC will be ask for
> volunteers from the existing ActiveMQ PMC to step up to be on the new
> Camel PMC. Then ask the new PMC to nominate a chair from the
> community. Get the TLP done and have the PMC vote in new PMC members
> in the normal Apache way.
>
Oh we would need to do a similar thing for the committer list..
pollthe ActiveMQ committers to see which ones want to join the Camel
TLP as committers.
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
>>
>>>
>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> Guillaume Nodet
>>> ------------------------
>>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>>> ------------------------
>>> Open Source SOA
>>> http://fusesource.com
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Jon
>>
>> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Hiram
>
> Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
>
> Open Source SOA
> http://open.iona.com
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
>
>> decide what the PMC list
>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>
>
> Hmmm... maybe I'm not allowed to discuss this bit cause I'm not on the
> ActiveMQ PMC ;)
>
>
Nonsense.. It's important we clarify all the points in the proposal.
I think the easiest way to build the initial PMC will be ask for
volunteers from the existing ActiveMQ PMC to step up to be on the new
Camel PMC. Then ask the new PMC to nominate a chair from the
community. Get the TLP done and have the PMC vote in new PMC members
in the normal Apache way.
Regards,
Hiram
>
>>
>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Jon
>
> http://janstey.blogspot.com/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
I agree with this. Camel has come a long way since James first added it as a
subproject of ActiveMQ. I mean, just looking at the list of nabble activity
for apache projects (http://www.nabble.com/Apache-f90.html)... we're pretty
high up there. We're also seeing adoption of Camel in many other integration
style projects like ServiceMix, JBoss, OpenESB, etc.
>
> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the
> board.
> We would have to come with a project charter,
What exactly is a project charter? Is it like a scope kinda thing? Maybe we
could just generalize the intro snippet on Camels homepage? Maybe something
like this (forgive if this is not even close to what is needed :) )
The Apache Camel project aims to provide an easy way of creating Enterprise
Integration Patterns<http://activemq.apache.org/camel/enterprise-integration-patterns.html>to
implement routing and mediation rules by way of using Domain
Specific Languages (or Fluent APIs)<http://activemq.apache.org/camel/dsl.html>.
Camel can easily work directly with any kind of
Transport<http://activemq.apache.org/camel/transport.html>or messaging
model by having an easily extensible core. Apache Camel is a
small library which has minimal
dependencies<http://activemq.apache.org/camel/what-are-the-dependencies.html>for
easy embedding in any Java application.
So basically,
- Its easy to use
- Creates EIPs with DSLs
- Highly extensible
- Small and embedable core
> decide what the PMC list
> will be and find a PMC chair.
Hmmm... maybe I'm not allowed to discuss this bit cause I'm not on the
ActiveMQ PMC ;)
>
> Help and feedback welcomed !
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
http://janstey.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by James Strachan <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1 makes sense
2008/11/5 Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>:
> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
> will be and find a PMC chair.
> Help and feedback welcomed !
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
James
-------
http://macstrac.blogspot.com/
Open Source Integration
http://fusesource.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Hiram Chirino <hi...@hiramchirino.com>.
Agreed.. I think Camel has developed a self sustaining community and
has outgrown it's ActiveMQ roots.
+1 for going TLP.
I also think it would be nice if it happened before a 2.0.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>
> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>
--
Regards,
Hiram
Blog: http://hiramchirino.com
Open Source SOA
http://open.iona.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Jon Anstey <ja...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
> >> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
> >> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
> >> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the
> board.
> >> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
> >> will be and find a PMC chair.
> >> Help and feedback welcomed !
> >
> > I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
> > very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
> > ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
> > Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
> > that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
> > move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
> > release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
> >
> > Bruce
> > --
> > perl -e 'print
> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> > );'
> >
> > Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> > Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
> > Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
> >
> > Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
Cheers,
Jon
http://janstey.blogspot.com/
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
+1 I think Camel is very usable outside of ActiveMQ and should be a TLP.
Thanks,
Aaron
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Chris Custine <cc...@apache.org> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> --
> Chris Custine
> My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
> Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
> Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here is my +1 for moving Camel to TLP and we could mark the camel 2.0 as
>> a new star point :)
>>
>> Willem
>> Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
>> > +1. Before 2.0 is definitely the right time.
>> >
>> > Hadrian
>> >
>> >
>> > On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>> >>>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>> >>>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>> >>>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to
>> >>>> the board.
>> >>>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
>> >>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>> >>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>> >>>
>> >>> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
>> >>> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
>> >>> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
>> >>> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
>> >>> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
>> >>> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
>> >>> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
>> >>>
>> >>> Bruce
>> >>> --
>> >>> perl -e 'print
>> >>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> >>> );'
>> >>>
>> >>> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
>> >>> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
>> >>> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>> >>>
>> >>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Guillaume Nodet
>> >> ------------------------
>> >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> >> ------------------------
>> >> Open Source SOA
>> >> http://fusesource.com
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Chris Custine <cc...@apache.org>.
+1
--
Chris Custine
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is my +1 for moving Camel to TLP and we could mark the camel 2.0 as
> a new star point :)
>
> Willem
> Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> > +1. Before 2.0 is definitely the right time.
> >
> > Hadrian
> >
> >
> > On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
> >>>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
> >>>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
> >>>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to
> >>>> the board.
> >>>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
> >>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
> >>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
> >>>
> >>> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
> >>> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
> >>> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
> >>> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
> >>> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
> >>> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
> >>> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
> >>>
> >>> Bruce
> >>> --
> >>> perl -e 'print
> >>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> >>> );'
> >>>
> >>> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> >>> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
> >>> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
> >>>
> >>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >> Guillaume Nodet
> >> ------------------------
> >> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> >> ------------------------
> >> Open Source SOA
> >> http://fusesource.com
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Willem Jiang <wi...@gmail.com>.
Here is my +1 for moving Camel to TLP and we could mark the camel 2.0 as
a new star point :)
Willem
Hadrian Zbarcea wrote:
> +1. Before 2.0 is definitely the right time.
>
> Hadrian
>
>
> On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
>
>> Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>>>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>>>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>>>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to
>>>> the board.
>>>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
>>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>>
>>> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
>>> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
>>> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
>>> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
>>> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
>>> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
>>> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>> --
>>> perl -e 'print
>>> unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>>> );'
>>>
>>> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
>>> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
>>> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>>>
>>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
+1. Before 2.0 is definitely the right time.
Hadrian
On Nov 6, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder
> <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to
>>> the board.
>>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC
>>> list
>>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>
>> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
>> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
>> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
>> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
>> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
>> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
>> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0
>> release.
>>
>> Bruce
>> --
>> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!
>> G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
>> );'
>>
>> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
>> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
>> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>>
>> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Yes, I agree, that before 2.0 would be good.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>
> I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
> very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
> ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
> Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
> that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
> move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
> release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
>
> Bruce
> --
> perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
> );'
>
> Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
> Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
> Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
>
> Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Bruce Snyder <br...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM, Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
> will be and find a PMC chair.
> Help and feedback welcomed !
I have been pondering this for a while as well. I think it would be a
very good move for Camel since it's applicable to far more than just
ActiveMQ. One of the first questions I receive when I speak about
Camel is why it is a subproject of ActivMQ and my response is simply
that that's where the project began. I would definitely +1 such a
move, but the question is should we do it now or wait for the 2.0
release? I think such a move should take place before the 2.0 release.
Bruce
--
perl -e 'print unpack("u30","D0G)U8V4\@4VYY9&5R\"F)R=6-E+G-N>61E<D\!G;6%I;\"YC;VT*"
);'
Apache ActiveMQ - http://activemq.org/
Apache Camel - http://activemq.org/camel/
Apache ServiceMix - http://servicemix.org/
Blog: http://bruceblog.org/
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
I will prepare a draft charter by early next week. The board meeting
is on the 19th I think, so we should have enough time to review it and
iron it out.
If/when the proposal gets approved there'll be a lot of work with the
site.
Cheers,
Hadrian
On Nov 6, 2008, at 2:17 PM, Guillaume Nodet wrote:
> Yeah, it does not have to go through the incubator. There is a board
> meeting in a few weeks, so we may be able to iron things before so
> that we can send a proposal.
> This could mean if might be done by the end of the year.
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk>
> wrote:
>> +1
>>
>> That would be really great. Also if TLP then the urls for the xsd
>> schema should have a new home, so if that can be done before 2.0
>> then it would be cool.
>>
>> However how long time does such a transition take? I anticipate its
>> much faster than the incubator projects that IMHO takes well ..
>> very long time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Med venlig hilsen
>>
>> Claus Ibsen
>> ......................................
>> Silverbullet
>> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
>> 8362 Hørning
>> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
>> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:gnodet@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 5. november 2008 22:13
>> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
>>
>> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
>> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
>> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
>> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to
>> the board.
>> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC
>> list
>> will be and find a PMC chair.
>> Help and feedback welcomed !
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Guillaume Nodet
>> ------------------------
>> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
>> ------------------------
>> Open Source SOA
>> http://fusesource.com
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
Re: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Guillaume Nodet <gn...@gmail.com>.
Yeah, it does not have to go through the incubator. There is a board
meeting in a few weeks, so we may be able to iron things before so
that we can send a proposal.
This could mean if might be done by the end of the year.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk> wrote:
> +1
>
> That would be really great. Also if TLP then the urls for the xsd schema should have a new home, so if that can be done before 2.0 then it would be cool.
>
> However how long time does such a transition take? I anticipate its much faster than the incubator projects that IMHO takes well .. very long time.
>
>
>
> Med venlig hilsen
>
> Claus Ibsen
> ......................................
> Silverbullet
> Skovsgårdsvænget 21
> 8362 Hørning
> Tlf. +45 2962 7576
> Web: www.silverbullet.dk
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:gnodet@gmail.com]
> Sent: 5. november 2008 22:13
> To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
>
> I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
> that it should aim to be a TLP now.
> Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
> So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
> We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
> will be and find a PMC chair.
> Help and feedback welcomed !
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Guillaume Nodet
> ------------------------
> Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
> ------------------------
> Open Source SOA
> http://fusesource.com
>
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
RE: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
Posted by Claus Ibsen <ci...@silverbullet.dk>.
+1
That would be really great. Also if TLP then the urls for the xsd schema should have a new home, so if that can be done before 2.0 then it would be cool.
However how long time does such a transition take? I anticipate its much faster than the incubator projects that IMHO takes well .. very long time.
Med venlig hilsen
Claus Ibsen
......................................
Silverbullet
Skovsgårdsvænget 21
8362 Hørning
Tlf. +45 2962 7576
Web: www.silverbullet.dk
-----Original Message-----
From: Guillaume Nodet [mailto:gnodet@gmail.com]
Sent: 5. november 2008 22:13
To: camel-dev@activemq.apache.org
Subject: [DISCUSS] Moving Camel to TLP ?
I think Camel has a good and diverse self sustaining community and
that it should aim to be a TLP now.
Being a subproject of ActiveMQ is no more relevant imho.
So I'd like to start writing a proposal that would be submitted to the board.
We would have to come with a project charter, decide what the PMC list
will be and find a PMC chair.
Help and feedback welcomed !
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com