Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <3E6E9C3B.7090907@apache.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 21:32:27 -0500
From: "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.3b) Gecko/20030210
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: general@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Incubator DOA (Re: [STATUS] Tapestry [LACK-OF] Progress)
References: 
 <OF2E331EF6.556E21C6-ONCA256CE6.00822561-CA256CE7.00031621@multitask.com.au>
 <200303121207.12360.conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
 <3E6E8C59.3040409@apache.org>
 <200303121302.50836.conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <200303121302.50836.conor@cortexebusiness.com.au>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Conor MacNeill wrote:

>Andy, 
>
>Please don't miss the point. The point is not whether these are suitable 
>projects for Jakarta. That itself is an interesting question and you have a 
>valid opinion. I really don't mind if the conclusion to these proposals is 
>"Thanks, but we are not interested given the current situation ..." - I just 
>want to see some conclusion - not just limbo. 
>  
>
No I get your point, I just want to make sure we are fair.

It seemed to me that OpenSAML had issues best addressed by the board 
with some advice and consent by the
members.  The division of responsibility should be clarified here.  One 
board member did respond.  The proponent
seemed to argue the point without addressing the issue, and I think it 
was mostly dropped.

It seemed to me the pluto folks expected an immediate rubber stamp 
vote.  I think they went away.

>The real point I'm making is about the "mysterious silence" as you call it. I 
>saw no discussion from incubator PMC members on the Pluto proposal and 
>nothing at all from anyone on Charon (It may have been assumed that it was 
>part of Pluto - I don't know). Have the proposers given up, are they working 
>on changing things, etc, etc.
>  
>
Charon is kind of tied to Pluto. 

>The vote on AltRMI received only one vote here (Nicola Ken's), that I saw. I 
>may have missed others.
>  
>
That is completely fair.

>This lack of action is the real issue in the incubator, ATM.
>  
>
so to be fair:

1. The border of incubator reponsibilities are ambigious with regards to 
the boards
2. The incubator is not responsive to new requrests
3. The incubtor (itself) has not served to any decernable benefit to 
Tapestry, its first project.  Nor does it appear to have benefitted from it.

I would suggest the Incubator PMC suggest a more limited scope (those 
things that they are actually able/willing to provide on a reliable 
basis) and that they suggest a plan to get there.  It is possible (and 
I'm not volunteering) that the membership of the incubator PMC should be 
expanded in the event the problem is bandwidth.

I think the real problem here is that we're moving the responsibility 
away from those whom are motivated to accept it.

-Andy

>Conor
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>
>  
>