commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PRE-PROPOSAL] Commons as an Apache Top Level Project
Date Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:14:15 GMT
>From the responses above, it does not look like there is sufficient
support to move ahead with a TLP proposal.  The main reasons to
consider this, IMHO, are getting out of the "subprojects of
subprojects" world and tightening up a bit on oversight.  If others do
not feel that this is a big deal, then we can just keep things as they
are.

It would be a good idea, though, for us to take stock of the
components again like we did when we were expanding the Jakarta PMC
last year to make sure we had adequate oversight for each one.   For
those who do not follow the incubator list, these threads
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111064442500001&r=1&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=incubator-general&m=111091816015999&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=111091788800002&r=1&w=2
make for interesting reading.  In typical apache style, there are
diverse opinions presented, but most seem to agree that the "rule of
3" has a sound basis and support in the larger ASF community.

What that means to us is that unless we have at least *three*
committers actively reviewing commits, paricipating in discussions,
voting on action items, etc. for each of our components, then we are
not providing sufficient oversight.  In the current setup "we"
formally means the Jakarta PMC.   I think that Stephen's point on the
"Apache Commons" thread was that TLP-ness would make those who end up
on the <insert name> PMC more obviously and directly accountable for
oversight.  Brett pointed out that it would force us to think more
thematically about what "belongs" in the project.  I think both
Stephen and Hen have talked about ways to organize things better in
the past. I agree with all of these points.

Of course, we can address the oversight problem without becoming a TLP
and I suppose that is what we should be focused on now.  I know that I
am as much to blame as anyone for the current state.  I can't remember
how we did it last year, but it would probably be a good idea to do
some sort of a poll to find out who is watching what.  I will
volunteer to tally things up and summarize if others think this is a
good idea and are willing to participate.

Its too bad that the name issue has to muck up the discussion, because
that should not be the driving consideration.  As we learned in
endless naming discussions on the directory project, we don't have to
keep [java package name <-> apache project name] as a 1-1 mapping.  We
could call the TLP "Apache Foo" and keep the packages named just as
they are, which I agree with Martin is an obvious necessity.  We "own"
the org.apache.commons *Java* namespace now, and there is no reason
that whatever fluffy animal or j-concoction name that we chose as a
TLP name would have to munge its way into the package names.

Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message