Jakarta++

[Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>]

I think a lot of us have been talking past each other on the 
various lists, and so I thought I would try and summarize the 
situation as I understand it. 

In the beginning, the Foundation was created to sponsor one or 
more open source projects. Each project was to be managed by a 
Project Management Committee. Each PMC is overseen by a board 
officer. The PMC is generally made up of the senior Committers 
to the project. Each PMC is to have a Chair, and the Chair is 
to be a Member of the Foundation. The Chair is an 
administrative officer and has the authority to take decisive 
action when necessary. 

The Jakarta PMC was created as an umbrella for nascent Java 
products. Today, we might call it an incubator. The original 
idea was that the Jakarta subprojects would one day grown into 
Apache Projects. But the Jakarta community grew so quickly and 
so well that we have lost sight of the original objective. 

As it stands, the Jakarta PMC is filling the role of a board 
and each subproject's Committers are acting as a PMC. This is 
probably a good idea for young groups still learning The Way. 
But many of the Jakarta subprojects are all-grown-up now. Like 
any good parent, the Jakarta PMC should start encouraging the 
mature subprojects to leave the nest. 

This will mean that the nine Board officers will be the contact 
for more Projects. But each of these Projects will have its own  
Chair, and that Chair will be a Member of the Foundation too. 
The other members of the Committee will be the senior 
Committers to the Project, and hopefully the Project's officer 
and Chair will recruit more Foundation Members from each 
Project. More importantly, the Project's PMC will have both the 
knowledge and the authority to deal with things like IP issues.  

Today, Jakarta has Committers with the knowledge of problems, 
but without the authority to take decisive action. Conversely, 
we have a PMC with the authority to take action, but without 
the knowledge to apply that authority with good conscious. 

Jakarta is no longer a place of "little things". We sponsor 
several important products and continue to attract others. The 
people who created these products and their communities should 
be encouraged to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Apache 
giants, like httpd and PHP. 

The Foundation's Board may need to undergo some refactoring to 
deal with handling more Projects. But, given everything else we 
have accomplished, I believe this is yet-another achievable 
goal.

It's been said that a PMC is not a website and mailing list. 
This is true. But it is also true that a virtual community *is* 
a website and mailing list. As Jakarta subprojects become 
Apache Projects, it is likely that some PMCs may wish to keep 
the Project hosted at Jakarta, or at least linked through its 
home page. This would serve the interests of the Community 
quite well, since the Jakarta products really do work well 
together. For that, both the Jakarta PMC and its legion of 
Committers are to be commended.

-Ted.

Re: Website questions (Was: Jakarta++)

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

"Henri Yandell" <ba...@generationjava.com> wrote:

> And to the Jakarta PMC, when will Jakarta be mirrored? I can't seem to
> find a mirror for the downloads that doesn't lead back to Jakarta or have
> an empty page.

It will be mirrored once the mirrors CAN mirror it... I'm having a hard time
to pull XML and Jakarta off daedalus onto nagoya because each project uses a
different layout for their distribution binaries (see my mail to
mirrors@apache of a couple of days ago about my configuration files, it's
pretty complicated)...

I made a proposal on infrastructure to solve this (I believe it went through
yesterday), and we need to see how it goes. If someone is interested, please
let me know, or subscribe to infrastructure@apache.org.

Once a reorganization and a standardization of our "dist" directories is
achieved, it'll be easier for mirrors to download this or that part of the
ASF downloads "offering", and therefore both be more flexible on how we
distribute files, and less intrusive on daedalus' bandwidth...

    Pier

Website questions (Was: Jakarta++)

[Henri Yandell <ba...@generationjava.com>]

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Ted Husted wrote:

> I think a lot of us have been talking past each other on the
> various lists, and so I thought I would try and summarize the
> situation as I understand it.

Who is the web architect for the Apache site? How will its navigational
structure handle N more top level projects? It's already maxxed out the
recommended number of selections in a list. And Apache-Commons still to be
added.

As projects are promoted, how will the front site avoid turning into the
Jakarta front page? 23 projects and many of these are merely umbrellas.

And to the Jakarta PMC, when will Jakarta be mirrored? I can't seem to
find a mirror for the downloads that doesn't lead back to Jakarta or have
an empty page.

Hen

Re: Jakarta++

[Ted Husted <hu...@apache.org>]

10/28/2002 9:39:47 AM, Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org> 
wrote:
>I would just like to add one little thing. Thinking about this 
more
>"flexible" structure where the oversight chain 
(committers/pmc/board) isY
>different from the "grouping chain" (jakarta or xml as focal 
centers of
>communities based around projects having different oversight 
chains), will
>allow also project whose scope is blurred between tow 
different groups to be
>represented by both...
>
>My example being Cocoon, which could be hosted by Jakarta with 
its
>"competing alikes" Turbine, Struts, ... (web application 
frameworks) but at
>the same time by XML because if the core technologies used by 
it...

A sensible way to go would be to look toward sites like Jakarta 
and XML (and whatever for .NET) being mainly the home of 
Commons projects. They could then also list and promote the 
other Apache Projects in their language group (many of which 
would be clients of the site's Commons). 

I think in the end we will find that the Commons idea is mostly 
language specific, since many of the components are filling 
gaps in the host language. Before long, an Apache Commons will 
tend to splinter into groups working on this language or that 
language. 

Any Commons component so clearly defined that it could be 
implemented in multiple languages that it might really be a 
small product. By implementing it multiple languages, it would 
quickly become a larger product, and then be a Project 
candidate.

I also think that the Commons is the best way to build 
community among developers working on different projects. By 
giving them a place to share their stuff, we give everyone a 
chance to work together and get to know one another.

Originally, Tomcat was the "anchor" for Jakarta. But looking 
forward, I could see the Commons filling that role instead. 

As we attract Committers working in other languages, like C#, 
they might want to establish a Commons site too, and other C# 
Projects listed there, regardless of whether they are living in 
the incubator or as a top level Project. 

Which brings up another critical point. I think a product 
hosted at a place called "incubator" might have some trouble 
attracting a Community. =:0) I agree with having the Project, 
and using the name to remind everyone what its about, but we 
may need to list the incubator products along side more mature  
products to attact a stable audience. Which brings us back to 
using places like Jakarta and XML like portals, rather than as 
product hosts.

-Ted.

Re: Jakarta++

[Pier Fumagalli <pi...@betaversion.org>]

Well put overall...

"Ted Husted" <hu...@apache.org> wrote:

> It's been said that a PMC is not a website and mailing list.
> This is true. But it is also true that a virtual community *is*
> a website and mailing list. As Jakarta subprojects become
> Apache Projects, it is likely that some PMCs may wish to keep
> the Project hosted at Jakarta, or at least linked through its
> home page. This would serve the interests of the Community
> quite well, since the Jakarta products really do work well
> together. For that, both the Jakarta PMC and its legion of
> Committers are to be commended.

I would just like to add one little thing. Thinking about this more
"flexible" structure where the oversight chain (committers/pmc/board) is
different from the "grouping chain" (jakarta or xml as focal centers of
communities based around projects having different oversight chains), will
allow also project whose scope is blurred between tow different groups to be
represented by both...

My example being Cocoon, which could be hosted by Jakarta with its
"competing alikes" Turbine, Struts, ... (web application frameworks) but at
the same time by XML because if the core technologies used by it...

    Pier