geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dain Sundstrom <>
Subject Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 01:12:28 GMT
On Jul 11, 2005, at 5:44 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:

> Yep.  I never said that you can't, so please don't suggest I was  
> saying that.
> But it was my impression that both TriFork people and Geronimo  
> people, including you, were interested in the code coming into a  
> SVN repository under the supervision of the Geronimo PMV, with all  
> those people working in that SVN

Ah so we have a misunderstanding in two directions.  I am interested  
in the concept of what you have written, but think the code should go  
to incubator and worked on in incubator.  I think Geronimo should  
stick to one ACL and just have new code we want people to be able to  
work on directly while being integrated to go into incubator.

>> I guess you're not going to be happy.  I think that we have  
>> different situations here.  My guess is every donation will be a  
>> unique situation.  We need to measure the situation and act  
>> accordingly.
> I don't agree.  I think that having a simple set of rules is needed  
> for transparency and fairness.  Of course, exceptions can be made,  
> but that should be to a well-understood and supported policy.

To use Aarons word, I'm ok with "guidelines" or rules of thumbs, but  
we measure each situation as a unique instance.  Since, all these  
discussions happen in the public and all are welcome to join in, I  
don't think we will have a problem with a perception of unfairness or  
the stink of a smoke filled room.  I think rules and precedents in  
this case can be very dangerous as the a large donation can change  
everything overnight.  If we were to accept the wrong donation by  
just following the rules and precedents, it could burn the good will  
that keeps this collaboration project together.

>> I hope no one would do that.  That would be incredible damaging to  
>> our community.  How would you feel if Trifork donated their web- 
>> service implementation?  We could suck it into Geronimo and get  
>> everyone using it.  Of course that would really hurt Axis.
>> I think we avoid any situation that would undermine an existing  
>> healthy open source community.  If someone wants to donate  
>> something to compete against an existing healthy Apache licensed  
>> open source community, we can simply suggest they work with the  
>> existing community or start a new one.
> I agree.  We should always encourage that.  But sometimes  
> competition is good :

Not all competition is good.  If we were to accept an webservice  
implementation into Geronimo it would give it an unfair advantage.   
We could permanently damage or kill an otherwise healthy project.   
And why?  So we can have our own X?

If the competing implementation is superior, then it should have no  
problem competing without the Apache or Geronimo brands.

>>>> The ORB supports a large specification without a (healthy)  
>>>> existing Apache licensed open source version.  If there were an  
>>>> existing apache licensed open source ORB, I would rather see the  
>>>> code donated and worked into an exiting project.  Alternatively,  
>>>> the group donating the code could start a new project outside  
>>>> Apache, and develop a healthy community of it's own.  I do not  
>>>> think that Geronimo should ever assist in undermining an  
>>>> existing (healthy) open source project.
>>> That's fine, but I don't think the donators wish to go this way  
>>> at first, and I think that we're happy to accommodate them.
>> What?  That was a hypothetical situation.   I wrote "If there were  
>> an existing apache licensed open source ORB", but as I see it  
>> there is not one, so we should a new project and community here.
> No.  The CORBA donation is not hypothetical, and intended to come  
> to the Geronimo project.  For what reason do you wish to make them  
> go to the incubator?

Holy cow! Please read my email before responding next time.  My  
"note" was about a hypothetical situation, which isn't true in this  
case.  I was not attempting to link that "note" to a discussion about  
incubator at all.  Man!

Obviously you want me to now write something about the incubator, so  
I will...

What is wrong with the incubator?  You are acting like we banished  
them to the underworld to prove themselves in fiery combat.  Maybe  
I'm wrong, but I blieve that this situation is exactly what incubator  
was designed for.  We have a large new code base and new committers  
for it.  We can work with them and the code in a safe helpful  
environment while they become accustomed to the project and we become  
accustomed with them.  What is the big deal?


View raw message