incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Date Sun, 05 Jan 2003 13:52:33 GMT
Because they want to be.  Some folks in the Apache community would like
them here.

I think there is another discussion in here that would be better 
continued on members@apache.org.  We are sending an inconsistant message 
and conducting a Catch-22 experiment at the same time.

The question "At what level should a project that wishes to join, join".
I feel it is unfair to subject them to it.

When Tapestry was originally submitted to Jakarta (months ago) it was 
felt that they needed our help adopting a meritocracy and less of (as
it was put) "benevolent dictatorship".  I joined their lists and helped
them do that, and now this is being used to exclude them?  Yes, I feel
this conversation is best decided in a manner that will provide a
consistant guideline in the future.

-Andy

Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> --On Friday, January 3, 2003 8:54 PM -0500 "Howard M. Lewis Ship" 
> <hlship@attbi.com> wrote:
> 
>> Eventually, I'd like to change package names.  Yes, that would wipe
>> out history as well.  I've already subjected users to this once:
>> renaming com.primix.tapestry.* to net.sf.tapestry*.
>>
>> Renaming to org.apache.tapestry.* would be desirable.  I suppose
> 
> 
> It seems that Tapestry has done well managing itself - why do they want 
> to change that by being a part of the ASF?  It seems a foregone 
> conclusion that Tapestry should be a part of Jakarta.   Why not a 
> Tapestry top-level project?  They've already gone to a 2.1 release (or 
> whatever).  Why should the Jakarta project increase their management 
> burden when they already have problems managing what they have?
> 
> Perhaps the question I'm really trying to ask is: why should the ASF 
> accept Tapestry?  I know Aaron asked this too, but I believe that the 
> responses from Sam and Andy have avoided the question in spectacular 
> fashion.  I'm just not seeing a compelling reason why the ASF should add 
> Tapestry.
> 
> The fact that they are 'cool guys who will work on other stuff' isn't an 
> answer.  Having a pet project not part of the ASF shouldn't stop them 
> from being involved with any ASF projects.  It's all open for them to 
> participate.  Participating in a non-ASF project doesn't forbid you from 
> participating in an ASF project.  If they were really interested, they 
> should already be participating!
> 
> While I'm glad that rearranging the Tapestry project structure to follow 
> ours has proven to be a boon for Tapestry, that still doesn't seem a 
> compelling reason.  In fact, I believe it's less of a reason - they've 
> already switched.  What can we offer them in addition?  They already 
> figured it out themselves!
> 
> I don't believe our infrastructure is a reason to merit inclusion. If we 
> accepted every project that was merely fed up with SourceForge's 
> infrastructure, our quality of service would decrease severely due to 
> the load.  There has to be a compelling argument for the foundation to 
> shoulder the burden of hosting a project.
> 
> A similar argument goes towards extending our brand name to a project to 
> increase visibility of it.  It's great to have your project be a part of 
> the ASF.  I'm sure there are lots of projects that would like to be a 
> part of the ASF.  But, letting everyone join the ASF merely dilutes the 
> brand.  Therefore, this can't be a reason, either.
> 
> Nor do I agree with the fact that there is project synergy with other 
> ASF projects is a reason for inclusion.  I could say that about lots of 
> other open source projects that we're not responsible for.  Not all 
> projects under an ASF-style license have to be part of the ASF. Nor do 
> all implementations of a specific class of product have to be found at 
> the ASF.  The goal of the ASF isn't to house every open source project 
> or to build a product line.  That's SourceForge's goal.  I believe *our* 
> primary goal is to help develop new communities.
> 
> To me, Tapestry seems a bit too mature for the ASF, and I don't think we 
> can add substantial value to Tapestry.  The word for this list is 
> 'incubator.'  This seems like an adoption rather than an incubation. If 
> someone has a compelling argument for addition, I'd like to hear it.  
> But, I must say that I haven't seen one yet.  -- justin
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 




Mime
View raw message