hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Abele <e...@codefaktor.de>
Subject Re: TLP proposal draft
Date Mon, 29 Oct 2007 14:30:17 GMT
On 28.10.2007, at 19:38, Roland Weber wrote:

> Erik Abele wrote:
>
>> I'm not so sure about the 4th parapgraph: the first part is implicit
>> anyway (adoption), the second part is fine but sounds a bit strange -
>> dunno, I guess the board will have questions here, but it probably  
>> isn't
>> a show-stopper, so best is to leave it as it is and wait on  
>> feedback...
>
> How about this:
>
> RESOLVED, that the Apache !HttpComponents Project will not create new
> applications, but only '''adopt existing efforts''' at Apache to  
> develop
> applications based on the components and wishing to join the Apache
> !HttpComponents Project, '''excluding''' efforts to implement
> '''standardized server-side containers''' such as a Servlet or Portlet
> container; and be it further

I really don't think that all this is necessary. It feels *very*  
strange when looking at all the other TLPs.

The more I think about it, the more awkward it becomes, sorry :-)

Quoting the Incubator site:

"A good resolution is neither too narrow nor too broad. If the  
project's scope is too narrow, then its activities will be  
unnecessarily constrained. If a project's scope is too broad then it  
may lack focus and suffer from governance issues."

I think that falls more into the former category - it certainly isn't  
too broad without this paragraph.

(Compare with the MINA proposal [1]; they talked about "networked  
applications" which could be anything but they're getting along  
pretty good with it...)

> The "excluding..."
> stuff is not really necessary, but I'd leave it in as a courtesy to
> the folks who had concerns about the creation of the HttpComponents
> subproject at the time.

As said, that doesn't make any sense to me - these concerns are moot  
IMHO, maybe a relict of Jakarta... We shouldn't let the outside  
dictate our effort - it's not that we would plan anything like that  
so what?

> This explicit restriction should not only help to shape our scope,
> but also protects us from questions like "you promised us  
> applications,
> where are they?" ;-)

Hmm, nobody promises anything - who would care?

I really think we're making an elephant out of a mouse here - the  
scope is pretty much defined with "a toolset of low level Java  
components focused on HTTP and associated protocols, and of  
applications based on these components".

I don't see any need to further define this with explicit restrictions.

So, to sum up: I'd simply remove that paragraph and submit the  
proposal for the 14 Nov board meeting - if accepted this gives enough  
time to get the infrastructure going (plan on some weeks for that),  
write the bylaws, move the site and other resources etc. etc... (I'm  
happy to help with all that).

Cheers,
Erik

[1] http://www.apache.org/foundation/records/minutes/2006/ 
board_minutes_2006_10_25.txt

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


Mime
View raw message