incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkra...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Date Sun, 05 Jan 2003 12:31:43 GMT
--On Sunday, January 5, 2003 10:09 PM +1100 dion@multitask.com.au 
wrote:

> I don't think that there are any foregone conclusions wrt Tapestry.
> They've put forward a proposal, various people in the Jakarta
> project were  enthusiastic and hence it's come to the incubator.
> What happens from here  is a complete unknown.

That depends.  I believe Sam said in a thread that he just hoped that 
the lack of comment meant that it was okay to add it to Jakarta.

> Why not a top-level project? I'd be ok with that as a result.

My impression from Andy and Sam was that they planned on adding it to 
Jakarta and that it was a done deal and that they were waiting for 
the bureaucracy to file the paperwork.  (Sorry to disappoint.)

> How does the ASF grow and maintain it's community? Is it by
> attracting new  developers to existing code? Growth from within?
> Isn't acceptance of a  project in whole one of the ways of
> strengthening the community?

Do we really see that our community is stagnating?  I'm perfectly 
fine with not achieving global domination.  If it means that we're 
not accepting every project that comes our way, so be it.  People are 
free to do their own thing elsewhere.  We can be choosy.

One of the side goals of the incubator should be to publish/codify 
ASF policies.  This furthers allows people to adopt our policies 
outside of the ASF.  There should be no restriction to using our 
philosophy only within the realm of the ASF.

> A rhetorical question: 'What can the ASF offer any of it's existing
> projects?'. If project structure were all it were about, most
> developers  wouldn't be here.

Community.

> I don't think the suggestion has been made that the Tapestry
> developers  and users are fed up with Sourceforge. And I agree, the
> infrastructure is  no reason, and I don't think it's ever been put
> forward as one.

Andy said that one of the main reasons for accepting Tapestry was 
because 'Sourceforge's servers are down half the time, etc.'

> I didn't think you could 'join' the *ASF*? Hence it couldn't
> possibly be a  reason.

Erg, I meant the project becoming an ASF project.  Not the membership 
in the foundation itself.

> And how is that achieved? It seems like 'from within' is a dead-end
> road,  since we are a limited resource without external people and
> code. So that  leaves outside people, but no 'outside' code that
> can be added?

I think you underestimate the creativity of the people we already 
have and the communities we already have.

> I'd agree with this last sentence. But given the Tapestry
> developers  originally put the proposal to Jakarta, and that all
> new projects were  supposed to come through 'incubation' (AFAIK),
> that's how they got here.

And, perhaps, the role of the Incubator is to place a brake on some 
of the growth.  Or, perhaps not (the incubator PMC gets to decide). 
Uncontrolled growth may not be beneficial long-term.  But, I've yet 
to see a discussion on how much growth we're willing to handle.

> enter through the Incubator. ". To me that  sounds like the
> incubator's job is to handle adoptions.

I happen to disagree.  Feel free to disagree.  -- justin

Mime
View raw message