incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Competing projects was Re: [VOTE] Incubate new podling, "River" (nee Braintree, nee..., nee Jini)
Date Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:06:19 GMT

On Dec 23, 2006, at 10:41 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:

> On Dec 22, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>> On 12/22/06, Jim Jagielski <> wrote:
>>> A simple one-liner similar to Geir's "No other ASF project
>>> or podling in the architecture space is based on Jini"
>>> is enough I think...
>> This is getting off-topic, but really why do we care?
> We don't. As I've said many times, having competing projects
> IS good. All I've said is that when proposals come in they
> should simply acknowledge it and mention how/why they are
> different.

And, for what it's worth, what is the sense of going
through issues and learning lessons (I'm thinking
CeltixFire/CXF primarily at this point) if not to make
adjustments to avoid them in the future.

2 things we learned from that:

    1. Podlings that appear to "compete" with other
       podlings or projects create friction, either
       rightly or wrongly (I say wrongly, of course).
       So efforts should be made to reduce that.
       Simple acknowledge is a nice easy way to
       do that.

    2. The relationship between the initial committer
       list and initial PPMC is "vague", or, at least,
       not clear enough that we had different people
       (one of which was a Mentor) have differing views
       and who was actually part of the PPMC.
       Again, why not simply avoid this potential
       by making it explicit.

I really fail to see how all that is such a big deal.
We're talking an additional 2 sentences....

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message