geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Donation of Admin Console- request for help
Date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:18:47 GMT

On Jul 11, 2005, at 9:12 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> 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.
>

Ah.  My mistake then.  I was certain that you wished for something  
else for TriFork.  My apologies.

>
>>> 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 don't think we have that risk here.

>
>
>>> 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?

I think it depends on the situation, right?  You can have  
implementations of the same technology that are tailored for  
different needs.

>
> 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!

I see.  In the case of the CORBA donation, I thought that there was  
general consensus to bring here and get started, and let natural flow  
of the project determine if it should be a new project and all...

>
> Obviously you want me to now write something about the incubator,  
> so I will...
>
> What is wrong with the incubator?

Nothing.

> 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?

For what reason do you wish to make them go to incubator?  I think  
that Geronimo is a safe, helpful environment where they can become  
accustomed to the project and we to them.  That said, I'm happy to  
see them go to incubator and will help there if that's what they  
want.  But what is different when it comes to Geronimo, right?

My POV is that the incubator serves two purposes - first to ensure  
that any code contribution is properly handled, with proper oversight  
of the acceptance process.  (IOW, the proper software grant is  
received from the copyright owner to ensure that the code is being  
offered to the ASF by the copyright holder and not someone else.)   
The second is, in the event that a community needs to be built around  
code that is standalone, that it is done.  In our case, it's my  
understanding that the intent was to *not* build a standalone project  
and community, but start by integrating tightly in Geronimo.

I think that's the key question to be answered.  Based on that, it  
should go to the proper place.

geir

-- 
Geir Magnusson Jr                                  +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org



Mime
View raw message