incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From d...@multitask.com.au
Subject Re: [Tapestry-contrib] Re: Tapestry?
Date Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:09:33 GMT
Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org> wrote on 05/01/2003 07:32:50 
PM:

> --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 
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.

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

> 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.
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?

> 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!

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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

> 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.
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?

> 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. 

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.

Mime
View raw message