You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@avalon.apache.org by Berin Loritsch <bl...@apache.org> on 2002/11/12 05:08:34 UTC
PMC et al
I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
As to the explicit wording, I am not shure. However, I
am looking at it in this way:
Avalon Framework: establishes the contracts, rules, and
expectations of Avalon components. (note that those
intangible qualities can be expressed in code)
Avalon LogKit: the logging toolkit it always has been.
Avalon Excalibur: enabling technologies for Avalon
components.
Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
contracts for hosting server applications.
Avalon Cornerstone: collection of Avalon components
(since we should have one definition)
Anything else is not really fit for the Avalon
PMC/direct Avalon umbrella.
It was a nice gesture for Avalon Apps, but IMO something
like Incubator or SourceForge would have been a better
location. Eventually they could have been made top level
projects (and some can, like FTP server or proxy server).
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 19:21, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>
>>Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Fede,
>>>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>>>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>>>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>>>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>>>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
>>>>and united but...
>>>>IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>>>moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>>>>It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>sound sarcastic...
>>
>>
>
>it was not intended as such at all. I think it's very important that
>emeritus committers such as yourself participate in discussions such as
>this one.
>
>
just kidding... :P
>
>
>>>This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
>>>of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
>>>list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
>>>
>>>The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
>>>happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
>>>increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
>>
>>
>
>true. The discussion about restructuring jakarta is not happening here;
>it is happening (has happened) on other mailing lists like
>community@apache.org. From those discussions about restructuring jakarta
>(and apache as a whole) came the ideas of making several of the jakarta
>subprojects 'self-managing'.
>You will probably appreciate the fact that (paraphrasing Greg Stein) the
>Jakarta PMC is agreeable to setting up an Avalon PMC, as are the greater
>apache and jakarta communities.
>
>
>
>>If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
>>doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have a
>>different container implementation.
>>
>>
>
>hmm. I can understand why you are seeing things that way.
>
>The way I see it, what is happening now is that multiple 'container
>implementations' (the HTTPD PMC, the Jakarta PMC, the XML PMC, PHP
>PMC....) are being reviewed, and a common framework extracted from those
>(most of the work on this is happening on community@apache.org and
>general@incubat.apache.org). The "new Avalon" will be a 'refactored'
>community centered around that common framework.
>IOW, what I see is the multiple communities that exist at apache coming
>together, exchanging thoughts, deciding on some foundation-wide
>refactoring together. Avalon is one of many projects following that
>general trend.
>
I just meant that "coming together" and "separate PMC" is either
political or a contraddiction.
fede
>
>regards,
>
>- Leo Simons
>
>
>
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 19:21, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >Hi Fede,
> >On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> >>Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >>>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
> >>>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> >>>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> >>>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> >>>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
> >>>
> >>I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> >>and united but...
> >>IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> >>moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> >>It's Yet Another Mailing List.
> >
> >first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
> >
> sound sarcastic...
it was not intended as such at all. I think it's very important that
emeritus committers such as yourself participate in discussions such as
this one.
> >This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
> >of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
> >list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
> >
> >The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
> >happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
> >increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
> >
> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
true. The discussion about restructuring jakarta is not happening here;
it is happening (has happened) on other mailing lists like
community@apache.org. From those discussions about restructuring jakarta
(and apache as a whole) came the ideas of making several of the jakarta
subprojects 'self-managing'.
You will probably appreciate the fact that (paraphrasing Greg Stein) the
Jakarta PMC is agreeable to setting up an Avalon PMC, as are the greater
apache and jakarta communities.
> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
> doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have a
> different container implementation.
hmm. I can understand why you are seeing things that way.
The way I see it, what is happening now is that multiple 'container
implementations' (the HTTPD PMC, the Jakarta PMC, the XML PMC, PHP
PMC....) are being reviewed, and a common framework extracted from those
(most of the work on this is happening on community@apache.org and
general@incubat.apache.org). The "new Avalon" will be a 'refactored'
community centered around that common framework.
IOW, what I see is the multiple communities that exist at apache coming
together, exchanging thoughts, deciding on some foundation-wide
refactoring together. Avalon is one of many projects following that
general trend.
regards,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:01, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> I like that. Don't like avalon.apache.org thou (I know I'm a PITA :).
>
> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL?
easy enough (and the way that has been recomended).
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
----------------------------------------
Whatever you do will be insignificant,
but it is very important that you do it.
--Gandhi
----------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code
>>> 2) directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and
>>> manage the decision making process in the Avalon community. This
>>> could not be done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't
>>> want/can't be legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2
>>> levels away for the community 3) do not have time and resource to
>>> lead and manage every community.
>>>
>>> I like that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Me too - and something I really like is that this happening in
>> conjunction with the Incubator, Apache commons, etc. This makes it
>> much easier for the Avalon PMC to pull in support from other places
>> and deal constructively will the migration and reorganization process .
>
>
> The only concern left you shold define first the set of projects under
> the avalon pmc umbrella so you're going to be legally binded only to
> those projects. If you sign in for projects that will be moved to
> different pmcs things could get slightly more complicated, not
> impossible but...
The way the proposed resolution is structured, there is an inconsistency
between the stated scope and the source content. This was intentional.
I think Leo Simons summed this up well in one of his emails concerning
the implications that the scope statement has on the PMCs
responsibilities concerning restructuring. IOW - the first thing that
the PMC needs to focussed on is detailing a charter that while within
the scope declared in the board resolution - qualifies what we mean by
thing like component and services in the context of "component and
service management". This requires a little more that saying "a
component is a coponet based on the Avalon framework" - instead its more
abstract and probably closer to the original proposal ideas put forward
by Stefano when the server project was formed (but leveraging the
benefits of hindsight, and doing it with a full established community).
With a charter that makes things clear and well understood, the next
thing is to look at restructuring. This is probably more complicated
because there is a lot of responsibility we (the community) have to
ensure that we do this properly, with attention to the user community
interests, and at the same time leveraging the groups around as such as
the Incubator and Commons.
Anyway - that's a big subject that needs lots of full and open discussion.
>
>
>>> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you
>>> don't probally care so much for the domain name but stating that
>>> would quite help at least for the infostructure guys.
>>
>>
>> Its already been made clear that we can maintain all of the existing
>> URLs (comments from Jakarta and Board members) . We don't want to
>> break anything (code or web links) used by our user community - but
>> there is somethinig new emerging - but that's about a "united avalon"
>> identity - which comes back to the PMCs initatial work on charter etc.
>
>
> what I meant is things should stay in jakarta.apache.org and *only*
> there. I don't think different domain is a good idea. Mainly because
> what you're doing here should apply to *all* apache projects and
> that's just too many names.
There were some comments about this on the reorg or community list
(doon't remember which). My understanding is that the Avalon PMC will
be given the avalon.apache.org space reflecting its status as a
top-level PMC (assuming of course that the current vote is sucessfull).
I think there was also an email in the Avalon-Dev list from the Board
confirming this.
>>
>> On the infrastructure side - are you involved in that at all ?
>
>
> I have friends... :-)
:-)
I will need friends.
Cheers, Steve.
>
>>
>> Cheers, Steve.
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code
>> 2) directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and
>> manage the decision making process in the Avalon community. This
>> could not be done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't
>> want/can't be legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2
>> levels away for the community 3) do not have time and resource to
>> lead and manage every community.
>>
>> I like that.
>
>
>
> Me too - and something I really like is that this happening in
> conjunction with the Incubator, Apache commons, etc. This makes it
> much easier for the Avalon PMC to pull in support from other places
> and deal constructively will the migration and reorganization process .
The only concern left you shold define first the set of projects under
the avalon pmc umbrella so you're going to be legally binded only to
those projects. If you sign in for projects that will be moved to
different pmcs things could get slightly more complicated, not
impossible but...
>> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you
>> don't probally care so much for the domain name but stating that
>> would quite help at least for the infostructure guys.
>
> Its already been made clear that we can maintain all of the existing
> URLs (comments from Jakarta and Board members) . We don't want to
> break anything (code or web links) used by our user community - but
> there is somethinig new emerging - but that's about a "united avalon"
> identity - which comes back to the PMCs initatial work on charter etc.
what I meant is things should stay in jakarta.apache.org and *only*
there. I don't think different domain is a good idea. Mainly because
what you're doing here should apply to *all* apache projects and that's
just too many names.
>
> On the infrastructure side - are you involved in that at all ?
I have friends... :-)
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
>>> different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> A PMC by the people, for the people.
>>
>> By this I mean a PMC composed of members of the Avalon community
>> working to better server the members of the Avalon Community, and the
>> development of that community in the context of Apache goals and
>> culture.
>
>
> That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code
> 2) directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and
> manage the decision making process in the Avalon community. This could
> not be done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't want/can't
> be legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2 levels away
> for the community 3) do not have time and resource to lead and manage
> every community.
>
> I like that.
Me too - and something I really like is that this happening in
conjunction with the Incubator, Apache commons, etc. This makes it much
easier for the Avalon PMC to pull in support from other places and deal
constructively will the migration and reorganization process .
> Don't like avalon.apache.org thou (I know I'm a PITA :).
How about united.apache.org :-)
>
>
> would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you
> don't probally care so much for the domain name but stating that would
> quite help at least for the infostructure guys.
Its already been made clear that we can maintain all of the existing
URLs (comments from Jakarta and Board members) . We don't want to break
anything (code or web links) used by our user community - but there is
somethinig new emerging - but that's about a "united avalon" identity -
which comes back to the PMCs initatial work on charter etc.
On the infrastructure side - are you involved in that at all ?
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
>> different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
>
>
>
> A PMC by the people, for the people.
>
> By this I mean a PMC composed of members of the Avalon community
> working to better server the members of the Avalon Community, and the
> development of that community in the context of Apache goals and culture.
That is a group of people 1) legally responsable for the avalon code 2)
directly in contact with the board and the community 3) lead and manage
the decision making process in the Avalon community. This could not be
done by the current Jakarta PMC 'cause 1) they don't want/can't be
legally responsable for all the Jakarta code 2) live 2 levels away for
the community 3) do not have time and resource to lead and manage every
community.
I like that. Don't like avalon.apache.org thou (I know I'm a PITA :).
would it be possible to have a PMC without moving URL? I know you don't
probally care so much for the domain name but stating that would quite
help at least for the infostructure guys.
fede
>
>
> Cheers, Steve.
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is totally true - our area of interest and scope of concern is
>> Avalon, not Jakarta.
>>
>> :-)
>
>
> these words enforce my feeling you're "forking".
:-)
As Pete pointed out in an earlier reply, a context was established under
the reorg list during which the Avalon project was referenced on several
occations. During this process, members of the Jakarta PMC and the
Apache Board encoraged the Avalon community members to assess the
project and its relationship to the overall Apache community. Throught
this process there has been a constructive relationship betwen this
community and its PMC with the open exchange of opinions, concerns and
constructive comments as we have moved forward. I think that on review
you will find a solid and consistent platform of people working together
towards a common objective.
Two threads that I make good brackground reading include the following:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103681137000001&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=103691454800002&r=1&w=2
>
>>
>>>
>>> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you
>>> are doing is forking the framework specification because you want to
>>> have a different container implementation.
>>>
>>> just my thought
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If you review the threads on the Avalon PMC, I think you will arrive
>> at the conclusion that the avalon framework is the fundamental
>> backbone, however, I think you will also find that discussions about
>> the framework, containers, etc., are largely technical in nature and
>> as such are matters for the committer comunity. What the PMC has to
>> address is a charter, rationalization, and overarching objective of
>> deliving good quality open source solutions within our area of concern.
>>
>> Cheers, Steve.
>
>
> Not sure I got your point here. Maybe I've used the wrong example. Let
> the code speak... :)
>
> public abstract class JakartaProject { /** author: Jakrta PMC **/
> /*this could extend ApacheProject but... */
> public static final boolean isOpenSouce = true;
> public static final String licence = ApacheProject.APACHE_LICENCE;
>
> public abstract String getName();
> public abstract String getCharter();
>
> public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
> /* place reference implementation here */
> }
> }
>
> public class Avalon extend JakartaProject { /** author: Avalon
> committers **/
> .....
> public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
> /* place avalon optimized implementation here */
> }
> }
>
> What you're saying is there are methods in the JakartaProject class
> that are final and you don't like so you don't want to extend
> JakartaProject anymore.
Actually, extension of the Jakarta project was the subject of a thread
on the rorg list which subsequently migrated to the Avalon dev list -
however, the reality of building the notion of a sub-structure proved
productive. As discussions continued (involving the Jakarata PMC,
Incubator PMC and members of the Board), the concept of an Avalon PMC
become more focussed. I think you will will find lots of evidence of
loyalty from member of Avalon towards Jakarta and from Jakarta towards
Avalon in both the process and the vision (as opposed to forks or
approaches). This is something that involves several communities and I'm
very please to say that their representation in this process has been
suprisingly open.
>
> What I'm saying is to take away the final word and overwrite them. If
> the getNewCvsModule method implemented in the JakartaProject class is
> synchronized and it's too damn slow then write a multithreaded one for
> all subclass to benefit.
>
> I'm code addicted... sorry about that! :)
:-)
Think of this more along the lines of refactoring a part of your code base.
>
> Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
> different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
A PMC by the people, for the people.
By this I mean a PMC composed of members of the Avalon community working
to better server the members of the Avalon Community, and the
development of that community in the context of Apache goals and culture.
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
>
>
> This is totally true - our area of interest and scope of concern is
> Avalon, not Jakarta.
>
> :-)
these words enforce my feeling you're "forking".
>
>>
>> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
>> doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have
>> a different container implementation.
>>
>> just my thought
>
>
>
> If you review the threads on the Avalon PMC, I think you will arrive
> at the conclusion that the avalon framework is the fundamental
> backbone, however, I think you will also find that discussions about
> the framework, containers, etc., are largely technical in nature and
> as such are matters for the committer comunity. What the PMC has to
> address is a charter, rationalization, and overarching objective of
> deliving good quality open source solutions within our area of concern.
>
> Cheers, Steve.
Not sure I got your point here. Maybe I've used the wrong example. Let
the code speak... :)
public abstract class JakartaProject { /** author: Jakrta PMC **/ /*this
could extend ApacheProject but... */
public static final boolean isOpenSouce = true;
public static final String licence = ApacheProject.APACHE_LICENCE;
public abstract String getName();
public abstract String getCharter();
public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
/* place reference implementation here */
}
}
public class Avalon extend JakartaProject { /** author: Avalon
committers **/
.....
public synchronized void addCvsCommitter(Developer developer) {
/* place avalon optimized implementation here */
}
}
What you're saying is there are methods in the JakartaProject class that
are final and you don't like so you don't want to extend JakartaProject
anymore.
What I'm saying is to take away the final word and overwrite them. If
the getNewCvsModule method implemented in the JakartaProject class is
synchronized and it's too damn slow then write a multithreaded one for
all subclass to benefit.
I'm code addicted... sorry about that! :)
Anyow could you give me a more specific example of what would be
different in the Jakarta and Avalon PMC?
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
>
>> Hi Fede,
>>
>> On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>>> strong and united but...
>>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any*
>>> better. It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>>
>>
>>
>> first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
>>
> sound sarcastic...
sounds provocative ;-)
>
>
>> This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
>> of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
>> list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
>>
>> The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
>> happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
>> increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
>>
> Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
This is totally true - our area of interest and scope of concern is
Avalon, not Jakarta.
:-)
>
> If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
> doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have
> a different container implementation.
>
> just my thought
If you review the threads on the Avalon PMC, I think you will arrive at
the conclusion that the avalon framework is the fundamental backbone,
however, I think you will also find that discussions about the
framework, containers, etc., are largely technical in nature and as such
are matters for the committer comunity. What the PMC has to address is
a charter, rationalization, and overarching objective of deliving good
quality open source solutions within our area of concern.
Cheers, Steve.
>
> fede
>
>
>>
>> best regards,
>>
>> - Leo Simons
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>Hi Fede,
>
>On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>
>>Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
>>and united but...
>>IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>>It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>
>>
>
>first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
>
sound sarcastic...
>This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
>of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
>list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
>
>The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
>happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
>increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
>
Afaik there is not *one* line about how to restructure jakarta.
If you think the apache community avalon framework wise, what you are
doing is forking the framework specification because you want to have a
different container implementation.
just my thought
fede
>
>best regards,
>
>- Leo Simons
>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
Hi Fede,
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 16:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
> >I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
> >I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> >a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> >standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> >what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
> >
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
first of, thanks for taking the time to respond!
This is not about moving discussions at all (I suspect that almost all
of them will all stay on avalon-dev; the thing that'd change is that the
list moves from avalon-dev@jakarta.apache.org to dev@avalon.apache.org).
The creation of a PMC is in line with the general restructuring
happening at apache right now, and has to do with legal security,
increased community-sense on an apache-wide scope, etc etc.
best regards,
- Leo Simons
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>>
>>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>>> strong and united but...
>>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any*
>>> better. It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Federico:
>>
>> I totally and completely agree with your sentiments here.
>>
>> If we look back over the discussions on this subject there have been
>> a broad spectrum of reasons reflecting the breadth of the Avalon
>> community and beyond that - those communities impacted by Avalon (our
>> user community, the Apache Board, Jakarta, etc.). The notion of
>> "escalation" means different things to different people - for myself
>> it is something strongly related to the notion of our right to "self
>> determination". For others it is related to questions of
>> "accountability", "visibility", "liability" - the list goes on.
>
>
> I think you used the magic word here... visibility.
> I +1000 to give more self determination and accountability to all
> Jakarta projects (which of course does not mean 1 PMC each) and -1000
> to give more visibility to projects that are not mature yet.
I happy to see your +1000 on the subjects of self determination and
accountability.
It appears we share a couple of common interests.
:-)
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Stephen McConnell wrote:
>
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>
>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>> strong and united but...
>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>
>
>
> Federico:
>
> I totally and completely agree with your sentiments here.
>
> If we look back over the discussions on this subject there have been a
> broad spectrum of reasons reflecting the breadth of the Avalon
> community and beyond that - those communities impacted by Avalon (our
> user community, the Apache Board, Jakarta, etc.). The notion of
> "escalation" means different things to different people - for myself
> it is something strongly related to the notion of our right to "self
> determination". For others it is related to questions of
> "accountability", "visibility", "liability" - the list goes on.
I think you used the magic word here... visibility.
I +1000 to give more self determination and accountability to all
Jakarta projects (which of course does not mean 1 PMC each) and -1000 to
give more visibility to projects that are not mature yet.
This is probally due to my personal definition of "top level project".
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
> strong and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
Federico:
I totally and completely agree with your sentiments here.
If we look back over the discussions on this subject there have been a
broad spectrum of reasons reflecting the breadth of the Avalon community
and beyond that - those communities impacted by Avalon (our user
community, the Apache Board, Jakarta, etc.). The notion of "escalation"
means different things to different people - for myself it is something
strongly related to the notion of our right to "self determination".
For others it is related to questions of "accountability", "visibility",
"liability" - the list goes on.
As you said - there is not one single reason - in effect there are many
reasons, and when brought together, these collective set of interests
will set the tone, direction, and potential for the evolution of a
united Avalon.
Cheers, Steve.
>
> fede
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 02:56, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> >I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
> >I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> >a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> >standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> >what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC
There is one. Essentially none of the committers are protected by Apache
because we are not all PMC members. Apache was designed to work with
communities structured more like HTTPD (however even non-PMC comitters are
not protected over there). Thats the only reason that this change is
occuring.
> and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
agreed. It will/should be buisness as usual. The only discussion that will
likely end up on PMC list is about voting people in - any other discussion
will be done on the dev lists. Anyone tries to push through technical
decisions on the PMC list then they are in for a shock ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Egoism is the drug that soothes the pain of stupidity. |
-------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 05:12, Federico Barbieri wrote:
> So, if I'm getting this right, you want more control, more indipendence
> over the rules governing the avalon (at large) community right?
> I quite agree on that thou I would prefer to see a proposal to improve
> the community sent to the Jakarta PMC to be voted and adopted by the
> whole jakarta (or apache) community.
> The ability to set up new cvs modules like [jakarta-avalon-*] could (I'm
> not saying it is) be a good thing for all projects.
> If you want to modify commiter access rules just do it. None will ever
> complain if you are more efficient and productive.
Agreed. All we have to do is say we want X and X will happen in 99% of cases.
> My guts tells me there is too much burocracy and politics in this...
your gut would be right.
> damn it it's open source! It's self determination by definition! There
> is no need for institutionalisation.
>
> Ok I sound like ranting now... it's just that I'm sorry to see weeks of
> (code wise) unproductive discussion.
>
> hope I'm making sense...
yep.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*-----------------------------------------------------*
* "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, *
* and proving that there is no need to do so - almost *
* everyone gets busy on the proof." *
* - John Kenneth Galbraith *
*-----------------------------------------------------*
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>>
>> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>>
>>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>>> strong and united but...
>>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>>> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>>
>>
>>
>> It's about direct accountability to the board.
>>
>> This is what we *have* to agree on in any case, the PMC is just a tool.
>>
>> " ...
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
>> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
>> and be it further
>>
>> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
>> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
>> Avalon subproject;
>> ..."
>
>
> So, if I'm getting this right, you want more control, more indipendence
> over the rules governing the avalon (at large) community right?
IMNHO no. There was a discussion on reorg@apache.org that told us that
we need to be PMC members to have legal protection from the ASF.
This would also make us be accountable directly, and report directly to
the board.
> I quite
> agree on that thou I would prefer to see a proposal to improve the
> community sent to the Jakarta PMC to be voted and adopted by the whole
> jakarta (or apache) community.
> The ability to set up new cvs modules like [jakarta-avalon-*] could (I'm
> not saying it is) be a good thing for all projects.
> If you want to modify commiter access rules just do it. None will ever
> complain if you are more efficient and productive.
It has nothing to do about us wanting more freedom or our own pet rules.
Facts have shown that we have already fragmented stuff (too much?) and
created non-written rules.
> My guts tells me there is too much burocracy and politics in this...
> damn it it's open source! It's self determination by definition! There
> is no need for institutionalisation.
Then why "Apache" at all? <dizzy>
> Ok I sound like ranting now... it's just that I'm sorry to see weeks of
> (code wise) unproductive discussion.
Two weeks? How long have you been away? ;-)
> hope I'm making sense...
The feelings are correct, but there is some background you're probably
not aware of. This PMC formation is completely different from what it
would have meant only one month ago.
I would have agreed with you at that time, the reasons currently are
different and based on the reorg discussions.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
>
>> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>>
>>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>>
>>
>> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is
>> strong and united but...
>> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
>> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
>> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
>
>
> It's about direct accountability to the board.
>
> This is what we *have* to agree on in any case, the PMC is just a tool.
>
> " ...
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
> development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
> and be it further
>
> RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
> with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
> Avalon subproject;
> ..."
So, if I'm getting this right, you want more control, more indipendence
over the rules governing the avalon (at large) community right?
I quite agree on that thou I would prefer to see a proposal to improve
the community sent to the Jakarta PMC to be voted and adopted by the
whole jakarta (or apache) community.
The ability to set up new cvs modules like [jakarta-avalon-*] could (I'm
not saying it is) be a good thing for all projects.
If you want to modify commiter access rules just do it. None will ever
complain if you are more efficient and productive.
My guts tells me there is too much burocracy and politics in this...
damn it it's open source! It's self determination by definition! There
is no need for institutionalisation.
Ok I sound like ranting now... it's just that I'm sorry to see weeks of
(code wise) unproductive discussion.
hope I'm making sense...
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
>
>> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>
> I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
> and united but...
> IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
> moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
> It's Yet Another Mailing List.
It's about direct accountability to the board.
This is what we *have* to agree on in any case, the PMC is just a tool.
" ...
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the creation of a set of bylaws intended to encourage open
development and increased participation in the Avalon Project;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the initial Avalon PMC be and hereby is tasked
with the migration and rationalization of the Jakarta PMC
Avalon subproject;
..."
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Federico Barbieri <fe...@betaversion.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
>I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
>I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
>a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
>standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
>what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
>
I see you all agree on this and I'm happy the Avalon community is strong
and united but...
IMHO there is not *one* single reason why creating an Avalon PMC and
moving discussions from here to there would make things *any* better.
It's Yet Another Mailing List.
fede
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Paul Hammant <Pa...@yahoo.com>.
Berin
>It was a nice gesture for Avalon Apps, but IMO something
>like Incubator or SourceForge would have been a better
>location. Eventually they could have been made top level
>projects (and some can, like FTP server or proxy server).
>
>
Proxy is a load a shit really. It needs a few week's work. It is more
of a demo for Phoenix comps.
FtpServer I agree should be a top level project. Rana needs to garner a
community first however excellent it is (the same thing that is a
blocker for AltRMI and others).
- Paul
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:40, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
>
>> 2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
>> (no more fancy names, pleeease)
>
>
> The initial name for this was AUT (Avalon Utility Toolkit). However we dropped
> that idea as we needed to get a stable release out for cocoon. We could
> revive that but I am not sure it is a great idea.
In this world, there is only one thing we are sure of... well sort of...
> Either way I would -1 any backwards incompatible changes to anything released
> as 100% stable (in particular framework/logkit) even though from a technical
> perspective it would be nice ;).
This is a normal rule for anything in Apache, I would -1 it too.
>>>Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
>>>contracts for hosting server applications.
>>
>>This is a very delicate point.
>>
>>Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
>>should be a project in its own right.
>>
>>I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
>>we should unite?
>
> -1
>
> for the same reasons I have already explained to you when you asked me last
> time ;)
I need solutions, not vetos, which BTW do not count in this scenario:
please do not veto, counterpropose.
Please explain your proposal here, we need to decide what to do and not
keep this thing in a limbo...
...if you wish, of course, I don't want to rush anybody unneedlessly.
But the question will eventually surface again. Soon.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:40, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> 2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
> (no more fancy names, pleeease)
The initial name for this was AUT (Avalon Utility Toolkit). However we dropped
that idea as we needed to get a stable release out for cocoon. We could
revive that but I am not sure it is a great idea.
Either way I would -1 any backwards incompatible changes to anything released
as 100% stable (in particular framework/logkit) even though from a technical
perspective it would be nice ;).
> > Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
> > contracts for hosting server applications.
>
> This is a very delicate point.
>
> Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
> should be a project in its own right.
>
> I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
> we should unite?
-1
for the same reasons I have already explained to you when you asked me last
time ;)
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
--------------------------------------------------
Logic: The art of being wrong with confidence...
--------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> >+1
>
> Paul:
>
> Could you clarify for me your +1.
> Are you saying you support the seperation of Phoenix into a project PMC,
> or are you saying that Phoneix should be part of the united Avalon?
Seperate project dude. It is not for us to decide in the end (+1 -1 style), Jakarta-PMC nd
general @jakarta...
- ph
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Stephen McConnell <mc...@apache.org>.
Paul Hammant wrote:
>>>Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
>>>contracts for hosting server applications.
>>>
>>>
>
>Ahem... One of our containers, establishing its own rules and contracts for hosting server (and
>non server) applications. Rules, that is, beyond the ubiquitious Avalon-Framework interfaces.
>
>
>
>>This is a very delicate point.
>>
>>Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
>>should be a project in its own right.
>>
>>I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
>>we should unite?
>>
>>
>
>+1
>
>
Paul:
Could you clarify for me your +1.
Are you saying you support the seperation of Phoenix into a project PMC,
or are you saying that Phoneix should be part of the united Avalon?
Cheers, Steve.
>-ph
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Everything you'll ever need on one web page
>from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
>http://uk.my.yahoo.com
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:mcconnell@osm.net
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Paul Hammant <pa...@yahoo.com>.
> > Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
> > contracts for hosting server applications.
Ahem... One of our containers, establishing its own rules and contracts for hosting server (and
non server) applications. Rules, that is, beyond the ubiquitious Avalon-Framework interfaces.
> This is a very delicate point.
>
> Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
> should be a project in its own right.
>
> I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
> we should unite?
+1
-ph
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Everything you'll ever need on one web page
from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts
http://uk.my.yahoo.com
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
Re: PMC et al
Posted by Nicola Ken Barozzi <ni...@apache.org>.
Berin Loritsch wrote:
> I am glad we are finally considering a true Avalon PMC.
:-)
> I have long thought that we would be a good candidate for
> a top level project, maybe even more than one. Other than
> standard legalese for all PMC charters, we should look at
> what we explicitly desire for the Avalon PMC.
+1
I recall posts on the reorg and the community mailing lists about
starting a new Avalon from the basics, aka framework, and build up.
My comments below follow this line of reasoning.
> As to the explicit wording, I am not shure. However, I
> am looking at it in this way:
>
> Avalon Framework: establishes the contracts, rules, and
> expectations of Avalon components. (note that those
> intangible qualities can be expressed in code)
This is where we should start from.
> Avalon LogKit: the logging toolkit it always has been.
>
> Avalon Excalibur: enabling technologies for Avalon
> components.
> Avalon Cornerstone: collection of Avalon components
> (since we should have one definition)
>
These three contain stuff that can be divided into three categories:
Components/services, utility stuff and containers.
Part of our problems has come from dividing implementations and creating
feuds, so I would propose that:
1) the Components/services would eventually migrate to Apache Commons.
not now, not tomorrow, but the path is set, and other projects
like Turbine will follow :-)
2) we keep only *one* set of utility classes called avalon-util
(no more fancy names, pleeease)
3) all containers in the making, like Merlin2 and Fortress
go in the scratchpad dir.
This should *not* be done hastly, it will take time. But we'll get there.
In the end we will have *one* avalon CVS repo, with
./src/framework/**.java
./src/util/**.java
./scratchpad/src/merlin2/**.java
./scratchpad/src/fortress/**.java
Some classes now in framework will go in util too probably, we'll have
to vote case by case.
We will start with an empty CVS repo and I will ask votes on all
packages and eventually classes, and put in only what we agree on.
> Avalon Phoenix: establishes the server, rules, and
> contracts for hosting server applications.
This is a very delicate point.
Phoenix is big, really big. IMV it's at the same level of Avalon, and
should be a project in its own right.
I dunno, what do the Phoenix guys think that should be done, given that
we should unite?
> Anything else is not really fit for the Avalon
> PMC/direct Avalon umbrella.
Ad we should be *very* clear about what to accept.
All tentative stuff goes in /scratchpad, and no individual releases.
> It was a nice gesture for Avalon Apps, but IMO something
> like Incubator or SourceForge would have been a better
> location. Eventually they could have been made top level
> projects (and some can, like FTP server or proxy server).
I'd defer the decision of Avalon Apps for now, but would suggest Apache
Commons for common apps that can be used as components or the incubator
for bigger stuff.
It's up to the interested committers though to lead the show on this.
Oh, BTW, I would take up the PMC chair job, and fulfill the role in the
most neutral way possible, as a sort of Avalon re-incubation process.
I would resign as soon as the "porting" will be done.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <ma...@jakarta.apache.org>