Re: [POLL] General Consensus, Round 1

[Ceki Gülcü <cg...@qos.ch>]

At 07:12 21.02.2001 -0500, you wrote:

>(0)
>
>Do you agree with the "consensus points" above?

+1 

>(1)
>
>Should the the components be created and maintained as individual
>subproducts by a set of "component committers"?


>OR,
>
>Should the component be created and maintained by the union of all
>interested committers from the Jakarta products that are using the
>component? 

+1

>(2)
>
>Who will approve adding new codebases to the project:
>
>All the Committers? 
>
>OR,
>
>A group of "core" Committers?
>
>OR,
>
>Any Jakarta committer can add a codebase, SourceForge style.

+1

>(3)
>
>Is overlap between components acceptable? Is it OK for two components to
>solve the same problem differently?

No, in principle duplication should be avoided. When duplication occurs, the involved parties must reach an agreement in order to remove the duplication. If agreement can not be reached, then should trigger some external pressure depending on the circumctances.
  
>(4)
>
>Do we need a set of super-committers (e.g. PMC members) who can step-up
>when a codebase loses a sole Committer.

If the code base looses its committers, then either someone takes over or the project dies.

>(5)
>
>Can the unit of reuse and release be the package?
>
>OR, 
>
>Will we need a larger or smaller "granule" for each codebase?

I don't fully understand the question.

>(6)
>
>Should we encourage giving components boring, functional names, to
>emphasize their utilitarian nature?

Not necessarily. The committers choose the name as they see fit.

>(7)
>
>Do we want to propose this as a Jakarta subproject?
>
>OR,
>
>Do we want to propose a new PMC that would focus on Java development
>tools 
>(Ant and a package/component library -- maybe BSF too)?
>
>OR, 
>
>Start with a pilot Jakarta subproject, and then consider proposing a new
>ASF Project if it works.

+1 as this is the approach that has the least hassle associated with it. Ceki