geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Sisson <>
Subject Re: Frustrations of a Release Manager
Date Wed, 14 Jun 2006 23:31:51 GMT
Hiram, I care if a private or commercial entity has control over the 
default option.  To give you and the list some insight into why I am 
concerned and care, here is an e-mail I sent in response to a private 
e-mail from Aaron after I started the "Questions about" site thread on the dev list.  I didn't get any 
response to my mail.  I think we need to discuss these concerns and how 
they could be addressed.


Hi Aaron,

I like the concept of the plugins site. I get concerned when important 
things like this aren't discussed openly before being implemented.

I'm pretty sure you weren't planning on doing anything nasty, but I am 
more concerned (with my ASF hat on) with some of the issues that may be 
encountered in the future such as:

- Arguments over why an external site was made the default instead of an 
ASF site, possibly giving the owners of the site a financial advantage 
(e.g. advertising on the site etc.)  I have no problems with you having 
your own plugins site, but if it is the default, it is though the ASF is 
endorsing it and giving you an advantage over anyone else who would like 
to do the same.
- Concern whether in the long run the site can continue to afford the 
bandwidth, maintenance etc without charging for it
- What is there to stop you getting nasty if things go sour?  What would 
the impact on Geronimo be if that happened considering you would have a 
reasonable amount of traffic/exposure going to your plugins site?

In a perfect world I wouldn't have these concerns..

One way some of these concerns could be overcome is to have non ASF code 
hosted in an "open" hosting environment where an individual/company does 
not hold the keys to the site.

If you want to chat more, you can contact me via IRC or my yahoo ID 
********** but I would prefer this to be discussed openly.



Hiram Chirino wrote:
> I wouldn't care..  And I don't understand why anyone else would either?
> On 6/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <> wrote:
>> Would it make any difference to anyone if IBM proposed that we put 
>> as the default option.  I think there would be many eye brows raised 
>> at that one.  Let's be
>> consistent in our interpretations.
>> Jeff Genender wrote:
>> > Bruce Snyder wrote:
>> >> On 6/9/06, Jeff Genender <> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> No Bruce, thats not it at all.  Its simply discussing what he was 
>> going
>> >>> to do.  This all comes back to the lack of communication issue.
>> >> So you would have preferred that he send an email to the list
>> >> explaining the work he was doing on the code?
>> >
>> > I think it was clear what was wanted and needed...communication.  Lets
>> > go back to your statement that "we can agree to disagree"...we are
>> > beating a dead horse here...
>> >
>> >
>> >> Bruce
>> >
>> >
>> >

View raw message