You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org> on 2003/01/05 13:03:43 UTC
Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
--On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:01 PM +1100 Conor MacNeill
<co...@cortexebusiness.com.au> wrote:
> What problems do you see that Jakarta has managing what it has?
> BTW, this is a genuine question, not flamebait. I have seen this
> statement repeated often and would like to understand its basis.
*sigh*
The ability of the Jakarta PMC to maintain oversight of its
constituent projects. Sam has stated that the Jakarta PMC takes a
reactionary response to issues rather than a proactive response
because it can't keep up. I believe that is contrary to the original
intentions of the PMC structure, and indicates a flaw in the model
used by Jakarta's PMC.
I believe this is partly because there isn't adequate representation
in the PMC by all of its projects. One of the key tenets to the ASF
model is the meritocracy. The Jakarta PMC, as a popularly elected
body, isn't based on merit.
The management structure needs to be localized near the people doing
the work - i.e. the code itself. This allows active oversight to be
maintained. The people doing the work get to have a say in the
management. This is what makes them aware of how the ASF works.
(Why aren't more people from Jakarta subprojects members of the ASF?)
For example, I believe that Tomcat should certainly have its own PMC.
There is no reason to believe that the Tomcat committers themselves
can't be legally responsible for the project and its management. In
fact, IIRC, according to Roy, only actions by PMC members will be
protected by the ASF. Actions by committers may not be protected.
Therefore, under this interpretation, the bulk of the Jakarta
participants aren't covered by the protection of the ASF. How many
people involved in Jakarta projects realize this? (It was brought up
on the reorg@ list and it didn't seem to matter to some.)
> What would be the compelling reason that you would see for the ASF
> to accept any project? If Tapestry does not satisfy these
> requirements, then what sort of project would, IYHO, meet them?
> IOW, can the incubator function at all?
I believe the incubator should be about nuturing new communities.
Projects that already have a viable community have little need for
the ASF. About the only thing that they can leverage is either our
infrastructure and brand name. Those are things I do not want us to
allow just any project to use - we can't be SourceForge - we'd
collapse. I'd rather us restrict our limited resources to helping
new communities to form rather than helping already established
communities. I think there's a critical mass that every project
needs to achieve to be self-sustaining. Projects need help achieving
that.
My point is that our infrastructure and brand name can't be the
reason for joining the ASF. Tapestry already seems to have a
community and several major releases. A new project that is just
starting out might only have one or two interested people and perhaps
a little bit of code. Or, it might be a company looking to build a
community off donated code (see Tomcat, Ant). Those are the types of
things I'd rather see the ASF pursue. I'm not terribly interested in
importing medium-or-large size communities.
Quality over quantity. Smaller rather than larger.
> In this case I think the incubator is for the incubation of the
> Apache Way of doing things in an existing project and its
> participants. The resolution that formed the incubator states:
>
> RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation;
I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Yeah, the incubator gets
to decide what the ASF takes in...
> Isn't the incubator supposed to decide exactly that question? One
Well, yes, and that's why we're having this conversation on the
incubator list not on a wiki.
> of the problems with the incubator is when the ultimate answer is
> "No", what then for a project such as Tapestry that has undergone
> such changes? I'd like to see some discussion around that, for I
> feel it may be very difficult to say No after acceptance into the
> Incubator.
Obviously, I'm favoring a much flatter organizational model. In
fact, it's so flat that almost every project we'd incubate would have
its own PMC. There isn't another PMC that would have to approve it
when it leaves the incubator. The incubator PMC is responsible for
the oversight of these new PMCs. My hunch is that the incubator PMC
would judge when it reaches that critical mass of participation and
then withdraw from any involvement and do the promotion. If it
determines that it will never reach the critical mass, it'll shut the
PMC down or just leave it in the incubator.
That's my take on the incubator and its role. -- justin
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 07:32 AM, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ok, then why do we keep Tomcat? Why HTTPD itself? They have a viable
> community and thus little need for the ASF.
That's easy:
1) They are owned by the ASF
2) ASF members continue to work on them.
[...]
> So let's say JBoss wanted to join ASF? You'd say no because it's too
> big?
haha! Isn't that exactly what happened? And look at where JBoss is now!
-aaron
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 11:41:16AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, January 5, 2003 4:32 PM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi
> <ni...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> > You sound like they want to come in to suck our blood. Totally
> > defensive. Can't *we* leverage *their* community/code/vision? Are
> > we so perfect that they can only suck our blood?
>
> No. But, I feel that we do not have the resources to accept every
> project that comes our way. Therefore, I think there has to be a
> compelling reason to accept a particular project into the ASF. As I
> said, I have yet to see one made for Tapestry.
The Jakarta PMC said there was a compelling reason. They "saw one" an made a
decision. That's enough, so deal with it :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
>
> If Tomcat were proposed as a project, yes, it'd be too large.
>
>> So let's say JBoss wanted to join ASF? You'd say no because it's
>> too big?
>>
>> *sigh*
>
>
> At one point the JBoss team *was* interested in joining the ASF, but was
> rejected because it was too big. Exactly. -- justin
>
How interesting I was told it was because they wanted to join like the
week jakarta was formed and wanted to stay LGPL'd. However, who
believes mail archives anyhow.
-Andy
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re:
Tapestry?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Sunday, January 5, 2003 4:32 PM +0100 Nicola Ken Barozzi
<ni...@apache.org> wrote:
> Ok, then why do we keep Tomcat? Why HTTPD itself? They have a
> viable community and thus little need for the ASF.
>
> Or they just have the luck that ASF had them when they were poor
> ans small? :->
Indeed. We helped them grow. Part of our responsibility is to keep
them as they mature. We should be responsible for the projects that
we accept. We will not orphan projects as they grow.
> You sound like they want to come in to suck our blood. Totally
> defensive. Can't *we* leverage *their* community/code/vision? Are
> we so perfect that they can only suck our blood?
No. But, I feel that we do not have the resources to accept every
project that comes our way. Therefore, I think there has to be a
compelling reason to accept a particular project into the ASF. As I
said, I have yet to see one made for Tapestry.
> What is the ASF mission? Form new communities?
> Then why has Jakarta not accepted projects that do *not* have a
> stable community?
That's probably because they lacked oversight from the foundation.
Perhaps that isn't the case any longer.
> What is, then? What? Some poor developers with a nice idea and in
> need of help? I'm getting nervous, because I think, yes I do, that
> we're insulting Tapestry developers. And for that I apologise.
I'm not trying to insult the tapestry developers. I'm saying that
they already have a community built around it. What can they hope to
gain by joining us? Those benefits seem minimal.
> That's your opinion of course. So that means we should get only
> code dumps from companies and some poor developers with some lines
> of code, interesting ideas and a bag of hope?
>
> Come on....
How are we furthering our mission? This is how I see it.
> Tapestry is not of quality? It's too large? How large is too much,
> let's say as Tomcat?
If Tomcat were proposed as a project, yes, it'd be too large.
> So let's say JBoss wanted to join ASF? You'd say no because it's
> too big?
>
> *sigh*
At one point the JBoss team *was* interested in joining the ASF, but
was rejected because it was too big. Exactly. -- justin
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Sander Striker wrote:
> The question of what the ASF gains from 'adopting' Tapestry is an
> entirely different matter. Asking Tapestry to answer that would
> be insulting IMO. And I presume that the Jakarta PMC answered this
> question for themselves several months ago, when Tapestry first
> applied for adoption.
Peace, love and unity :)
Seriously: what _can_ a volunteer organisation based around open source
software and community gain from a new codebase & group of volunteers
being added, willing to work within the same spirit?
Nothing & everything.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
RE: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Nicola Ken Barozzi [mailto:nicolaken@apache.org]
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 4:32 PM
[...]
>> About the only thing that they can leverage is either our
>> infrastructure and brand name.
>
> You sound like they want to come in to suck our blood. Totally
> defensive. Can't *we* leverage *their* community/code/vision? Are we so
> perfect that they can only suck our blood?
Absolutely not. But the thing is that the question was what Tapestry
thought it would gain from becoming an ASF project. I personally
find that an interesting question.
The question of what the ASF gains from 'adopting' Tapestry is an
entirely different matter. Asking Tapestry to answer that would
be insulting IMO. And I presume that the Jakarta PMC answered this
question for themselves several months ago, when Tapestry first
applied for adoption.
[...]
>> My point is that our infrastructure and brand name can't be the reason
>> for joining the ASF.
I certainly can be. It would be unhealthy for the ASF if that were the only
reasons for projects wanting to join though.
Sander
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:01 PM +1100 Conor MacNeill
> <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>> What would be the compelling reason that you would see for the ASF
>> to accept any project? If Tapestry does not satisfy these
>> requirements, then what sort of project would, IYHO, meet them?
>> IOW, can the incubator function at all?
>
> I believe the incubator should be about nuturing new communities.
> Projects that already have a viable community have little need for the
> ASF.
Ok, then why do we keep Tomcat? Why HTTPD itself? They have a viable
community and thus little need for the ASF.
Or they just have the luck that ASF had them when they were poor ans
small? :->
> About the only thing that they can leverage is either our
> infrastructure and brand name.
You sound like they want to come in to suck our blood. Totally
defensive. Can't *we* leverage *their* community/code/vision? Are we so
perfect that they can only suck our blood?
> Those are things I do not want us to
> allow just any project to use - we can't be SourceForge - we'd
> collapse. I'd rather us restrict our limited resources to helping new
> communities to form rather than helping already established
> communities. I think there's a critical mass that every project needs
> to achieve to be self-sustaining. Projects need help achieving that.
What is the ASF mission? Form new communities?
Then why has Jakarta not accepted projects that do *not* have a stable
community?
> My point is that our infrastructure and brand name can't be the reason
> for joining the ASF.
What is, then? What? Some poor developers with a nice idea and in need
of help? I'm getting nervous, because I think, yes I do, that we're
insulting Tapestry developers. And for that I apologise.
> Tapestry already seems to have a community and
> several major releases. A new project that is just starting out might
> only have one or two interested people and perhaps a little bit of
> code. Or, it might be a company looking to build a community off
> donated code (see Tomcat, Ant). Those are the types of things I'd
> rather see the ASF pursue. I'm not terribly interested in importing
> medium-or-large size communities.
That's your opinion of course. So that means we should get only code
dumps from companies and some poor developers with some lines of code,
interesting ideas and a bag of hope?
Come on....
> Quality over quantity. Smaller rather than larger.
Tapestry is not of quality? It's too large? How large is too much, let's
say as Tomcat?
So let's say JBoss wanted to join ASF? You'd say no because it's too big?
*sigh*
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: ASF Benefits (was Re: Role of incubator)
Posted by Steven Noels <st...@outerthought.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> g/Fame/s//Visibility/g
>
> Visibility = when google pays attention to you.
Better start a weblog than an Apache project then.
</Steven>
--
Steven Noels http://outerthought.org/
Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center
Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/stevenn/
stevenn at outerthought.org stevenn at apache.org
Re: ASF Benefits (was Re: Role of incubator)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 11:43 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> g/Fame/s//Visibility/g
>>
>> Visibility = when google pays attention to you.
>
>
> Aren't those two different (but closely related) things?
>
At one time. Yes. Now? I'm not sure ;-)
> (Consider both added to the list :)
>
> -aaron
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: ASF Benefits (was Re: Role of incubator)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 11:43 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> g/Fame/s//Visibility/g
>
> Visibility = when google pays attention to you.
Aren't those two different (but closely related) things?
(Consider both added to the list :)
-aaron
Re: ASF Benefits (was Re: Role of incubator)
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
g/Fame/s//Visibility/g
Visibility = when google pays attention to you.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
> Hmm..This thread got me thinking.
>
> Why don't we make a list of all the things that projects
> can get from the ASF, or from being part of the ASF. I
> bet it would be much easier to make this list than, say,
> to try and write down what the Apache Way is.
>
>
> I'll start, feel free to add:
>
>
> - Projects outlive individual contributors
> - Community fostering
> - Infrastructure
> - mailing lists
> - bugzilla
> - webspace
> - cvs
> - development platforms
> - Entity ownership (legal oversight)
> - Apache Branding (aka Fame)
> ...
>
>
> I'm sure there are many more, for better or for worse,
> intended or not.
>
> -aaron
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
ASF Benefits (was Re: Role of incubator)
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
Hmm..This thread got me thinking.
Why don't we make a list of all the things that projects
can get from the ASF, or from being part of the ASF. I
bet it would be much easier to make this list than, say,
to try and write down what the Apache Way is.
I'll start, feel free to add:
- Projects outlive individual contributors
- Community fostering
- Infrastructure
- mailing lists
- bugzilla
- webspace
- cvs
- development platforms
- Entity ownership (legal oversight)
- Apache Branding (aka Fame)
...
I'm sure there are many more, for better or for worse,
intended or not.
-aaron
legal protection (was: Role of incubator)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 04:03:43AM -0800, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>...
> For example, I believe that Tomcat should certainly have its own PMC.
> There is no reason to believe that the Tomcat committers themselves
> can't be legally responsible for the project and its management. In
> fact, IIRC, according to Roy, only actions by PMC members will be
> protected by the ASF. Actions by committers may not be protected.
> Therefore, under this interpretation, the bulk of the Jakarta
> participants aren't covered by the protection of the ASF. How many
> people involved in Jakarta projects realize this? (It was brought up
> on the reorg@ list and it didn't seem to matter to some.)
Actually, the ASF is required to provide protection *only* to the following
people: directors, officers, and members. That definitely leaves out
committers, and it even leaves out PMC members who aren't members or the
Chair. The ASF will certainly try to assist the PMC members, but is
(actually) not obligated to do so.
IOW, we'll do what we can to protect the code and some of the people, but if
you want to shift any personal legal liability to the ASF, then your goal is
to become a member.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
thank you for that note, howard. that cleared things up considerably for
me.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/
Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/
"Millennium hand and shrimp!"
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 06:44 AM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> This sounds very Kafka to me ... your statement is that if a
> technology is
> in good shape (mature, has a community), then it shouldn't be added to
> Apache/Jakarta/Incubator because there's no benefit. However, from
> personal
> experience, I know that an unknown but promising project without a
> community
> (say, Tapestry in March 2000 -- check the e-mail achives) is very
> much NOT
> welcome to Jakarta.
It is almost impossible for the ASF to present a unified front,
so you can see where many of these inconsistencies come from.
[...]
> I'm alsop beginning to see what Sam Ruby was mentioning about "on my
> turf".
> We seem to be having variations of the same discussion again and
> again, in
> new places.
The incubator is new ground for everyone here, you included. You can
have
just as much of an impact on how this process goes as the next person.
-aaron
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com>.
This sounds very Kafka to me ... your statement is that if a technology is
in good shape (mature, has a community), then it shouldn't be added to
Apache/Jakarta/Incubator because there's no benefit. However, from personal
experience, I know that an unknown but promising project without a community
(say, Tapestry in March 2000 -- check the e-mail achives) is very much NOT
welcome to Jakarta.
I suppose there's a third option ... become a "journeyman committer" on
other Jakarta projects until you have the political backing to bypass this
Catch-22 filter. My free time has been completely consumed by Tapestry for
three years, and the framework reflects that, so that was not a viable
option for me.
Here's the Jakarta mission:
Jakarta is a Project of the Apache Software Foundation, charged with the
creation and maintenance of commercial-quality, open-source, server-side
solutions for the Java Platform, based on software licensed to the
Foundation, for distribution at no charge to the public.
Nothing there that says projects must start with Jakarta, and many of the
important ones did not (BSF, ORO, Log4J and others whose history I don't
know).
Tapestry is definately commericial quality (or better) and open-source.
Apache does have a better infrastructure than SourceForge, but primarily
offers Tapestry brand-recognition. This is very important; on SF it's
impossible to stand out from 20,000 other projects. Moving Tapestry to
Jakarta means passing a technology/meritocracy filter. Don't squander that
... it would survive, even if every Jakarta developer died of food poisoning
at JakartaCon2003.
What does Jakarta "get" from hosting Tapestry? What does it get from
hosting ORO, Struts or Log4J? It helps Jakarta with its mission statement,
by reinforcing the power of the Jakarta brand ... by delivering more
commercial-quality open-source server-side solutions. Its a bit of a
feedback cycle, that works as long as the software is of high quality.
I'm alsop beginning to see what Sam Ruby was mentioning about "on my turf".
We seem to be having variations of the same discussion again and again, in
new places.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Erenkrantz" <je...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:03 AM
Subject: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
> --On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:01 PM +1100 Conor MacNeill
> <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au> wrote:
>
> > What problems do you see that Jakarta has managing what it has?
> > BTW, this is a genuine question, not flamebait. I have seen this
> > statement repeated often and would like to understand its basis.
>
> *sigh*
>
> The ability of the Jakarta PMC to maintain oversight of its
> constituent projects. Sam has stated that the Jakarta PMC takes a
> reactionary response to issues rather than a proactive response
> because it can't keep up. I believe that is contrary to the original
> intentions of the PMC structure, and indicates a flaw in the model
> used by Jakarta's PMC.
>
> I believe this is partly because there isn't adequate representation
> in the PMC by all of its projects. One of the key tenets to the ASF
> model is the meritocracy. The Jakarta PMC, as a popularly elected
> body, isn't based on merit.
>
> The management structure needs to be localized near the people doing
> the work - i.e. the code itself. This allows active oversight to be
> maintained. The people doing the work get to have a say in the
> management. This is what makes them aware of how the ASF works.
> (Why aren't more people from Jakarta subprojects members of the ASF?)
>
> For example, I believe that Tomcat should certainly have its own PMC.
> There is no reason to believe that the Tomcat committers themselves
> can't be legally responsible for the project and its management. In
> fact, IIRC, according to Roy, only actions by PMC members will be
> protected by the ASF. Actions by committers may not be protected.
> Therefore, under this interpretation, the bulk of the Jakarta
> participants aren't covered by the protection of the ASF. How many
> people involved in Jakarta projects realize this? (It was brought up
> on the reorg@ list and it didn't seem to matter to some.)
>
> > What would be the compelling reason that you would see for the ASF
> > to accept any project? If Tapestry does not satisfy these
> > requirements, then what sort of project would, IYHO, meet them?
> > IOW, can the incubator function at all?
>
> I believe the incubator should be about nuturing new communities.
> Projects that already have a viable community have little need for
> the ASF. About the only thing that they can leverage is either our
> infrastructure and brand name. Those are things I do not want us to
> allow just any project to use - we can't be SourceForge - we'd
> collapse. I'd rather us restrict our limited resources to helping
> new communities to form rather than helping already established
> communities. I think there's a critical mass that every project
> needs to achieve to be self-sustaining. Projects need help achieving
> that.
>
> My point is that our infrastructure and brand name can't be the
> reason for joining the ASF. Tapestry already seems to have a
> community and several major releases. A new project that is just
> starting out might only have one or two interested people and perhaps
> a little bit of code. Or, it might be a company looking to build a
> community off donated code (see Tomcat, Ant). Those are the types of
> things I'd rather see the ASF pursue. I'm not terribly interested in
> importing medium-or-large size communities.
>
> Quality over quantity. Smaller rather than larger.
>
> > In this case I think the incubator is for the incubation of the
> > Apache Way of doing things in an existing project and its
> > participants. The resolution that formed the incubator states:
> >
> > RESOLVED, that the Apache Incubator PMC be and hereby is
> > responsible for the acceptance and oversight of new products
> > submitted or proposed to become part of the Foundation;
>
> I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Yeah, the incubator gets
> to decide what the ASF takes in...
>
> > Isn't the incubator supposed to decide exactly that question? One
>
> Well, yes, and that's why we're having this conversation on the
> incubator list not on a wiki.
>
> > of the problems with the incubator is when the ultimate answer is
> > "No", what then for a project such as Tapestry that has undergone
> > such changes? I'd like to see some discussion around that, for I
> > feel it may be very difficult to say No after acceptance into the
> > Incubator.
>
> Obviously, I'm favoring a much flatter organizational model. In
> fact, it's so flat that almost every project we'd incubate would have
> its own PMC. There isn't another PMC that would have to approve it
> when it leaves the incubator. The incubator PMC is responsible for
> the oversight of these new PMCs. My hunch is that the incubator PMC
> would judge when it reaches that critical mass of participation and
> then withdraw from any involvement and do the promotion. If it
> determines that it will never reach the critical mass, it'll shut the
> PMC down or just leave it in the incubator.
>
> That's my take on the incubator and its role. -- justin
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Trust WAS Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
> As Avalon amply demonstrated, being a subproject of Jakarta today does
> not preclude becoming an ASF project down the road.
>
> What is important (to me, at least) is:
>
> (1) No coersion has ever been placed on the tapestry folks towards
> Jakarta as a home.
Here is what I did: I asked them "What do you want to be" -- and
explained the implications as best as I understood them at the time
(which admitedly might not have been fully) and at the time
Avalon was a Jakarta project and nothing more.
* Your address would be: "tapestry.apache.org" instead of
jakarta.apache.org/tapestry
* You'd be directly accountable to the board instead of the Jakarta PMC
* You'd have your own PMC
They said they'd like to be a jakarta project. I think MAINLY for the
link on the Jakarta page and the venerable (outside the Apache developer
community) Jakarta "brand".
They are now aware that they could have their cake and eat it too.
Guys if you wish to make your preference known, signify it now.
>
> (2) The tapestry folks are well aware of their options.
yes.
>
> (3) As indicated above, any decision made now is mutable.
yes.
>
> And, orthogonal to the above, I recognize that this increases the need
> for me to address the underlying oversight issues that continue to
> exist within Jakarta.
Here is how I would suggest handling it in regard to the Tapestry issue
supposing it is just a Jakarta project.
Sam. I will monitor the project and tell the Jakarta PMC when/if there
are ever any issues that I think require oversite, if I'm ever unable to
perform this duty I will find someone who will. If I do not get a
response from the Jakarta PMC I will send mail to members and the board.
If you *trust* me to do this and *trust* my word on this, then the
issue is addressed in regards to the tapestry project. I have a perfect
track record in this regard.
-Andy
>
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
At 10:04 AM -0500 1/6/03, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>As Avalon amply demonstrated, being a subproject of Jakarta today does not preclude becoming an ASF project down the road.
>
>What is important (to me, at least) is:
>
>(1) No coersion has ever been placed on the tapestry folks towards Jakarta as a home.
>
>(2) The tapestry folks are well aware of their options.
>
>(3) As indicated above, any decision made now is mutable.
>
>And, orthogonal to the above, I recognize that this increases the need for me to address the underlying oversight issues that continue to exist within Jakarta.
>
Agreed. So I'm assuming that we are progressing under the assumption
of a Jakarta subproject. Post incubation, it's up to Tapestry what they
want (unless they want to propose, right now, that they'd prefer
being an "ASF project" directly, which I have not heard at all).
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Tapestry / Jakarta (was: Role of incubator)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 10:04:57AM -0500, Sam Ruby wrote:
> Jim Jagielski wrote:
> >
> > I think that Tapestry is a complex and large enough scoped project to
> > warrant it being its "own" ASF project, ala Avalon, and not a subproject
> > of Jakarta. However, the working assumption up to now has been that
> > the graduation path was towards Jakarta.
>
> As Avalon amply demonstrated, being a subproject of Jakarta today does
> not preclude becoming an ASF project down the road.
Quite true. And Ant as well.
>...
> (2) The tapestry folks are well aware of their options.
I'm not sure that I believe that. It would appear there is some confusion
between being "part of the Apache Jakarta branding / site presence" and
"managed by the Jakarta PMC". Avalon maintains its site under jakarta, and
Ant is under jakarta and at ant.apache.org, yet each has their own PMC.
Personally, I'd prefer to see Tapestry get its own PMC on exit.
> (3) As indicated above, any decision made now is mutable.
Yah.
> And, orthogonal to the above, I recognize that this increases the need
> for me to address the underlying oversight issues that continue to exist
> within Jakarta.
Easiest way is to stop trying and do more spawning. Turn Jakarta into the
"Apache Jakarta" brand rather than an organizational mechanism.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> I think that Tapestry is a complex and large enough scoped project to
> warrant it being its "own" ASF project, ala Avalon, and not a subproject
> of Jakarta. However, the working assumption up to now has been that
> the graduation path was towards Jakarta.
As Avalon amply demonstrated, being a subproject of Jakarta today does
not preclude becoming an ASF project down the road.
What is important (to me, at least) is:
(1) No coersion has ever been placed on the tapestry folks towards
Jakarta as a home.
(2) The tapestry folks are well aware of their options.
(3) As indicated above, any decision made now is mutable.
And, orthogonal to the above, I recognize that this increases the need
for me to address the underlying oversight issues that continue to exist
within Jakarta.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Jim Jagielski wrote:
>At 2:46 PM -0500 1/5/03, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>
>>I think this will depend on the precariousness of the political process more than anything else. I have no objection.
>>
>>
>>
>
>I think that Tapestry is a complex and large enough scoped project to
>warrant it being its "own" ASF project, ala Avalon, and not a subproject
>of Jakarta. However, the working assumption up to now has been that
>the graduation path was towards Jakarta.
>
>
Doesn't matter to me (and I highly doubt to them) so long as they're
linked from the page with the rest of the Java stuff.
Thanks,
-Andy
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
At 2:46 PM -0500 1/5/03, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>I think this will depend on the precariousness of the political process more than anything else. I have no objection.
>
I think that Tapestry is a complex and large enough scoped project to
warrant it being its "own" ASF project, ala Avalon, and not a subproject
of Jakarta. However, the working assumption up to now has been that
the graduation path was towards Jakarta.
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Aaron Bannert wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 06:08 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit confused by this. There is no reason Tapestry can't be a
>> Jakarta project and have a PMC. There are Jakarta projects that
>> function that way now. (Avalon I believe?)
>
>
> To be honest, I'm more comfortable at this time with Tapestry
> being its own top-level project w/ PMC than being a subproject
> of Jakarta. Then again, that's probably because I have very
> little visibility into the Jakarta mega-hierarchy but I do
> know a little how other top-level PMCs work (and I consider
> most of those to be healthy).
>
I think this will depend on the precariousness of the political process
more than anything else. I have no objection.
-Andy
> -aaron
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 06:08 AM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> I'm a bit confused by this. There is no reason Tapestry can't be a
> Jakarta project and have a PMC. There are Jakarta projects that
> function that way now. (Avalon I believe?)
To be honest, I'm more comfortable at this time with Tapestry
being its own top-level project w/ PMC than being a subproject
of Jakarta. Then again, that's probably because I have very
little visibility into the Jakarta mega-hierarchy but I do
know a little how other top-level PMCs work (and I consider
most of those to be healthy).
-aaron
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re:
Tapestry?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:19 AM -0500 "Howard M. Lewis Ship"
<hl...@attbi.com> wrote:
> I also think the synnergy will be easier to manager within Jakarta.
> For example, there is a bit of code in Tapestry that is not
> Tapestry specific that could move into the commons, into
> commons-lang perhaps.
My point is that this could happen without Tapestry being an ASF
project. -- justin
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Aaron Bannert <aa...@clove.org>.
Please define what you* mean by synergy.
*I'll pose the same question to anyone else who
has used that word in regards to Tapestry on this list.
-aaron
On Sunday, January 5, 2003, at 07:19 AM, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> Top level vs. Jakarta.
>
> Jakarta is "server side Java". Apache is less well defined.
>
> I also think the synnergy will be easier to manager within Jakarta.
> For
> example, there is a bit of code in Tapestry that is not Tapestry
> specific
> that could move into the commons, into commons-lang perhaps.
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com>.
Top level vs. Jakarta.
Jakarta is "server side Java". Apache is less well defined.
I also think the synnergy will be easier to manager within Jakarta. For
example, there is a bit of code in Tapestry that is not Tapestry specific
that could move into the commons, into commons-lang perhaps.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>
To: <ge...@incubator.apache.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> > Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >
> > Both Avalon and Ant are now sister ASF projects of Jakarta - of equal
> > stature in the eyes of the ASF. The Jakarta PMC is no longer
> > accountable for their actions.
> >
>
> Thanks for clearing that up. I think I get it now.
>
> >> I thought this "reorganization" was going to be voluntary. This
message
> >> does not sound that way.
> >
> >
> > I personally would welcome Tapestry as *either* a top level project or a
> > Jakarta subproject.
> >
>
> Yeah either is fine. I think Tapestry mainly prefers to be on Jakarta
> rather than top level because "thats where all the Java projects are".
> The rest is irellevant to me. I'm game for either. (this is not to
> say its not important, just not to me)
>
> -Andy
>
> > - Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Sam Ruby wrote:
> Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> Both Avalon and Ant are now sister ASF projects of Jakarta - of equal
> stature in the eyes of the ASF. The Jakarta PMC is no longer
> accountable for their actions.
>
Thanks for clearing that up. I think I get it now.
>> I thought this "reorganization" was going to be voluntary. This message
>> does not sound that way.
>
>
> I personally would welcome Tapestry as *either* a top level project or a
> Jakarta subproject.
>
Yeah either is fine. I think Tapestry mainly prefers to be on Jakarta
rather than top level because "thats where all the Java projects are".
The rest is irellevant to me. I'm game for either. (this is not to
say its not important, just not to me)
-Andy
> - Sam Ruby
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@apache.org>.
Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
>
> I'm a bit confused by this. There is no reason Tapestry can't be a
> Jakarta project and have a PMC. There are Jakarta projects that
> function that way now. (Avalon I believe?)
Both Avalon and Ant are now sister ASF projects of Jakarta - of equal
stature in the eyes of the ASF. The Jakarta PMC is no longer
accountable for their actions.
> I thought this "reorganization" was going to be voluntary. This message
> does not sound that way.
I personally would welcome Tapestry as *either* a top level project or a
Jakarta subproject.
- Sam Ruby
Re: Role of incubator was Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Posted by "Andrew C. Oliver" <ac...@apache.org>.
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:01 PM +1100 Conor MacNeill
> <co...@cortexebusiness.com.au> wrote:
>
>> What problems do you see that Jakarta has managing what it has?
>> BTW, this is a genuine question, not flamebait. I have seen this
>> statement repeated often and would like to understand its basis.
>
>
> *sigh*
>
<snip reason="long"/>
I'm a bit confused by this. There is no reason Tapestry can't be a
Jakarta project and have a PMC. There are Jakarta projects that
function that way now. (Avalon I believe?)
I thought this "reorganization" was going to be voluntary. This message
does not sound that way.
I feel many of the guidelines being used so far seem to be
self-contradictory.
I'd like to hear "what is the perfect project and reasons for joining"
currently I'm not seeing a way *any* project could join.
-Andy