From general-return-23047-apmail-incubator-general-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Thu Sep 03 16:39:19 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 50767 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2009 16:39:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 3 Sep 2009 16:39:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 34544 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2009 16:39:16 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-general-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 34355 invoked by uid 500); 3 Sep 2009 16:39:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact general-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: general@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list general@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 34345 invoked by uid 99); 3 Sep 2009 16:39:16 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:39:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of kevan.miller@gmail.com designates 209.85.211.194 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.211.194] (HELO mail-yw0-f194.google.com) (209.85.211.194) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:39:07 +0000 Received: by ywh32 with SMTP id 32so139431ywh.11 for ; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:38:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:x-mailer; bh=JpIQ+cRvQNaPFG+rUQiqYEvjYmcCbV+ek39J002iryw=; b=Uvb8A3tQId/DEXPTb8YZ2sKOHIbdV6v4Om7w/juORt50x4Gqq0Oph8i37gQgPjEv0Y j6Gq6G4uBCE3Kt55cAAHvSeKYUnrHbHuSRReWwuWj1WBVpzgFbmYQXnPJQ/1wCY119Ee ICC6IwJVINZN+4xjIDaGBi8qYgKfcoj7kg7D0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:from:to:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :x-mailer; b=a9Iekl5/bIlUkjotZZrnXLfL5GaWyWUCfbxu+k5LxJlMxYTTllBqqR8fSt8Tz6vV9o atVNs6rM16th+HhRuLBl0I2p01W6Ol+qDWWLaOMcz76JEduJy7hM6I5DI7Ds2NC0W+/H 7GOd4z2jzOURW+a/mnmSihRG22+jRPTJAsUCs= Received: by 10.90.45.19 with SMTP id s19mr7274240ags.100.1251995866944; Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:37:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.1.194? (cpe-076-182-095-055.nc.res.rr.com [76.182.95.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 38sm1731814aga.39.2009.09.03.09.37.45 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <3C3533C1-E974-414B-B191-21942A62ECB2@gmail.com> From: Kevan Miller To: general@incubator.apache.org In-Reply-To: <30b2aef60909020201u1962a0cbo3d3d80f00e0bf1e4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Apache Aries incubator for Enterprise OSGi Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:37:44 -0400 References: <30b2aef60909020201u1962a0cbo3d3d80f00e0bf1e4@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Sep 2, 2009, at 5:01 AM, Leo Simons wrote: > On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:38 PM, Jeremy Hughes > wrote: >> We appreciate any feedback and comments on the proposal. > > * Any chance of one or two of the other ASF members involved also > stepping up as a mentor? That would be very good. I left my name of the mentor list, hoping to encourage additional mentors... > > * Projects that consist of groups of components often have some > problems maintaining sufficient cohesion as a community. I hope you > guys will give that the specific attention it probably requires and > tune the project charter appropriately. I think there is more cohesion than simply an aggregation of components. Should be able to make this more obvious in the proposal. > > * I have no problems with having multiple OSGi projects at apache as > long as they're all healthy communities and they play nice with each > other. > > (...) > > Of course the "play nice" part is interesting here -- I'm frowning a > bit at seeing this how-to-interact-with-felix discussion kick off with > a pretty much finished proposal going to the incubator. Surely the > conversation can go a bit differently? For example maybe you could've > approached felix first and discussed seeding the project with some of > the parts-of-felix (along with developers) that are argued to need an > independent-from-felix re-brand? Maybe you can take a step back > together even now and see if something like that might make sense? Or, > maybe you can co-operate on a shared registry / website of the OSGi > components in all the different projects so that people visiting > apache.org are not confused? Or something like that? > > I hope you guys find a way to reduce the friction and co-operate; > having what looks like battle lines being drawn up at the start of > incubation is _not_ a good thing. The only friction that I've seen is whether or not this work should be under/destined for a Felix umbrella. I'm not aware of any existing technical overlap, nor anything that would prevent extensive sharing/ cooperation (even if we end up with 2 TLPs)... > > I do expect to see that felix/aria conversation resolved clearly one > way or another before the proposal goes up for a vote. Even if the > resolution is "there will significant charter overlap and duplication > of effort and code and probably little committer overlap between the > communities because we disagree on how to do things" then I'd like to > see that clearly spelled out. Agreed. --kevan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@incubator.apache.org