incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Accept Aries proposal for incubation
Date Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:09:58 GMT

On Sep 16, 2009, at 4:32 AM, Niall Pemberton wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:43 PM, Niclas Hedhman  
> <> wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:07 PM, Jim Jagielski <>  
>> wrote:
>>> After much thought, I am voting -1 for 1 main reason.
>>> 1: From the get-go, this appears headed towards an umbrella project.
>>>   Too many ways to justify "yeah, this belongs here" and far too
>>>   few ways to justify "nope, this doesn't quite fit in". So
>>>   whether TLP or part of Felix (as was the discussion), this appears
>>>   too comprehensive.
>> This comment surprised me enough to read this proposal again, and I
>> have to agree with Jim. On one hand, the proposal starts out to speak
>> of "current and future EEG specifications", but then becomes very  
>> blur
>> of what that really means. Components, not solutions, not a server,
>> not a framework, but "components" could as Jim points out mean
>> everything (or at least anything one can stick in a Bundle in OSGi
>> lingo).
>> Does it warrants a -1? Yes, I think it does. But considering how many
>> PMC members are on the roster, I doubt it will stop anything.
>> -1 from me, until I see a limitation in scope that is  
>> "describable"...
>> I like the intent, but not the formulation. Look at your current
>> plans, distill the essence and put that in the proposal.
> IMO this is more a graduation issue, rather than something that should
> prevent entry to the incubator - since thats when destination is
> decided. There are many possible outcomes from that - perhaps some
> parts will go to felix and others to a new TLP(s) - but I say lets see
> how it works out during graduation rather than shooting it down now.

I agree that the rubber hits the road when graduation, and when there
is a resolution before the board to make this a TLP. However, my
thoughts are that without this concern front-and-center from the get-go,
the podling runs the risk of hitting this roadblock right at the end,
at which point who knows how much impact this may have on it... In other
words, if a podling umbrella attempts to graduate into a TLP umbrella,  
will likely be shot down. Do we really want to wait until the end to
address this once and for all?

Just my 2c.

PS: BTW, I think it's a great proposal and podling and technically am  
a big
     +1 on it. My only concern is lack of directed focus...

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

View raw message