geronimo-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevan Miller <>
Subject Re: Geronimo support stories
Date Fri, 08 Aug 2008 20:04:32 GMT

On Aug 8, 2008, at 3:40 PM, Donald Woods wrote:

> I'd prefer a new link under the Community leftnav and one or more  
> pages behind it in our existing GMOxSITE wiki.

Sounds good to me.

> Kevan Miller wrote:
>> On Aug 7, 2008, at 8:15 AM, weberj wrote:
>>> For Glassfish there are several sucess stories:
>>> Are there for Geronimo / wasce too? If not, I suggest to collect  
>>> in the Wiki
>>> like this page:
>>> Pointy haired bosses will rather decide in favor of Geronimo if  
>>> you can show
>>> them that BigMegaCorp is using Geronimo with a zillion  
>>> transactions a day.
>> Heh. Thanks for the imagery. :-)
>> I totally agree. We recently received a request for the same  
>> information. How do others feel? I'd like to hear from users,  
>> committers, and, of course, our PMC members.
>> There are several different possible categories:
>> Users of Geronimo (Geronimo server, Geronimo components, etc)
>> Applications/Plugins that run on Geronimo
>> Projects/companies that bundle, repackage, or support Geronimo in  
>> some manner.
>> Information could be located either on our web site (e.g.

>>  or our Wiki (e.g.
>> Here are a few projects which maintain similar pages:
>> ActiveMQ --
>> Tomcat --
>> We'll need a process for how information is added to this list. I  
>> see the following scenarios:
>> 1) Information is volunteered to the project by interested parties  
>> (e.g. a user sends information to our user@ list about how they are  
>> using Geronimo)
>> 2) Usage information is publicly announced -- web site,  
>> publication, press release, etc.
>> I would be in favor of both scenarios.
>> Do we need any guidelines on content? Should we allow images, limit  
>> the amount of text, limit the amount of hype/marketing?
>> Personally, I'd rather not spin cycles in being too precise in  
>> creating guidelines. I'd prefer to see a CTR process -- if someone  
>> finds an entry objectionable, then simply register the complaint.  
>> The offending entry should be removed until all issues have been  
>> addressed.
>> Anything else that should be included in this discussion?
>> --kevan

View raw message