incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "robert burrell donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Blaze and Openness of Standards (was Re: [Proposal] Blaze)
Date Mon, 24 Jul 2006 22:04:40 GMT
On 7/24/06, Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> The synapse ones are clearly software though... At this point I am not
> trying
> to argue to use or non-use of a name. Just understand how does Apache
> deals with this.
>

apache believes that continuous improvement is more important than
consistency with the status quo. we aren't infallible. we make plenty of
mistakes but we try hard to learn.

the standards we demand of new projects evolve. this isn't for the sake of
extra overhead but because we believe that these changes will result in new
projects being stronger, healthier and more successful than previous
projects.

until the issues are well understoof and a consensus written up as policy,
we deal with it in the way we are now: by discussing the issue and debating
how best to deal with it.

Maybe we should use Synapse as the comp project to understand as it is
> quite a
> recent project, and this link
> http://www.synapse.co.in/homepage/trademarks.shtml .


that this is what we'd like to avoid. sadly, we don't always succeed.

How was the decision made around Synapse?


the incubator discussion is here:
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-general/200508.mbox/thread


synapse was proposed by the web services project and (unfortunately) the
proposal was discussed on a private list.

IMHO this process is less than ideal. sponsorship by the incubator PMC is
now the favoured route. i would like the incubator PMC  (in future) to adopt
a more active role in ensuring technical compliance even when the proposal
is sponsored by another project.

- robert

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message