incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Matthieu Riou" <matth...@offthelip.org>
Subject Re: [Proposal] NoNameYet : Link Error - please use this link
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2008 20:37:50 GMT
On Feb 1, 2008 10:04 AM, Simon Nash <nash@hursley.ibm.com> wrote:

>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> > Kelvin, NoNameProposers
> >
> > Maybe no-one has responded yet because no-one wants to ask the hard
> > questions! So here I go:
> >
> > Perhaps you can explain why this effort isn't being rolled into the
> > Tuscany work.
> >
> > There are some obvious reasons why I am confused by this proposal:
> >
> > 1. Tuscany already has the objective of producing code for SDO, and
> > already has code for SDO.
> > 2. Tuscany was another proposal to the IPMC predominantly coming from
> > IBM and BEA employees.
> > 3. The BEA committers left Tuscany and created a fork elsewhere
> > 3. Tuscany has been identified as lacking diversity.
> >
> > Why will this project gain diversity when Tuscany is finding it hard?
> > This move seems designed to make it even harder for both Tuscany and
> > NNYP to get diversity by splitting the pool of potential committers
> > even more thinly.
> >
> > I did read the paragraph on the relationship to Tuscany but I'm afraid
> > I came out more confused.
> >
> > I'm sure there are more hard questions but I think that's enough to be
> > going on with.
> >
> I'll jump in on the points related to Tuscany.  I don't think this new
> incubator would necessarily harm Tuscany's diversity.  If it broadens the
> open source community around SDO, there will more people interested
> in SDO and they may get involved in Tuscany to improve Tuscany's SCA
> support for SDO (as well as the many other databindings that Tuscany
> SCA provides).
>
> I think it's good for this work to be done in an open community rather
> than as an in-house collaboration between vendors.  I'm not sure why
> the points about the history of IBM and BEA's involvement in Tuscany
> are being raised.  The facts as stated are correct, and I'm sure the
> IBM and BEA people putting forward this proposal are well aware of them.
> If they have decided that they are willing to work together on this
> project and open it to a broader community, I see this as something
> positive that should be encouraged.
>

And what about bringing this in Tuscany instead of creating another podling?
Seems that the goals are similar enough to have a single project driving the
effort and it would probably greatly improve cross-pollination.

Cheers,
Matthieu


>
>   Simon
>
> > Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Jan 31, 2008 9:47 AM, kelvin goodson <kelvingoodson@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >>http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal
> >>
> >>That's what you get for employing reuse tactics -- gmail remembers the
> >>original URL.  I've been caught by this before, so I thought I had taken
> >>appropriate action to avoid this behaviour, but sadly not so, apologies.
> >>Kelvin
> >>
> >>On 31/01/2008, kelvin goodson <kelvingoodson@apache.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>We've posted an Apache Incubator proposal onto the incubator wiki
> >>>
> >>>http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/NoNameYetProposal
> >>>
> >>>We haven't got a good name yet,  SandStorm is a contender, as is
> Snowdon
> >>>
> >>>Suggestions and comments welcome,
> >>>
> >>>Kelvin.
> >>>
> >>><http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ThriftProposal>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org
>
>

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