jakarta-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [RESULT] Move Velocity to TLP
Date Sun, 24 Sep 2006 19:55:32 GMT


Nathan Bubna wrote:
> On 9/23/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> > On 9/22/06, Geir Magnusson Jr <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> >> I'm +1 and -1.
>> >>
>> >> I'm +1 as I do think that Velocity as a TLP is not unreasonable.  Not
>> >> necessary, but not unreasonable.
>> >>
>> >> I'm -1 because I'm worried that this is a new kind of umbrella that's
>> >> planned. Making it a catchall for things that are and use Velocity is
>> >> going the wrong direction.
>> >
>> > Nothing new about it.  Velocity became just such an umbrella under
>> > your leading, or am i mistaken about your part in forming DVSL and
>> > VelocityTools?  :)
>>
>> Tools was created because we wanted to offer support for struts users,
>> and struts didn't want it.  We didn't create a replacement for struts.
>> And yeah, it grew in scope.
>>
>> DVSL was similar.  Maybe it could have gone into commons, but again, it
>> was home grown.
>>
>> And "Billy did it too!" isn't really a good reason to do it :)
> 
> Agreed.  And neither do i think "Johnny couldn't do it" is really a
> good reason not too do it. :)

I don't understand that argument.  You are trying to say "no, we're not
an umbrella" while saying "yes, we are, but you did it too".  I'm having
trouble resolving these two confusing messages.

> 
>> > And the idea is not that all Velocity using projects are welcome, but
>> > that we are free to invite projects that are explicitly built upon or
>> > for Velocity.  There are big differences between being free to invite
>> > projects and being a "catchall" and between being a project that uses
>> > or supports Velocity and one that is explicitly built for or upon
>> > Velocity.
>>
>> How do you draw the line?
> 
> That's the real question here.  I'd love to hear good thoughts and
> suggestions on this.  I wrote/modified the proposal as well as i
> could, but i would very much appreciate more specific feedback on the
> wording of the charter-ish stuff in there.  Of course, i'm probably
> explaining my thoughts on this question more clearly in these
> discussions than i did in that document...  So, to summarize, the
> "line" should be drawn:
> 
> - On a case by case basis.
> - Carefully by the participating members of the Velocity PMC
> - To the exclusion of projects which simply use or support Velocity,
> without being explicitly and primarily built for use with the Velocity
> template engine and/or firmly upon the core Velocity codebase.

Sure - there could be a rule that "it only works with velocity" - IOW,
w/o velocity, it doesn't function.

Velosurf seems to be a good example of this.

> - To the exclusion of projects whose developer communities have no
> lasting interest and investment in the health and development of the
> core Velocity codebase.

That's hard to measure.  If that's known as a criterion, people will
just say the right things.

> 
> How's that sound?
> 
>> >> If there are projects that aren't template engines that want to
>> come to
>> >> Apache, the door is open and they are welcome.
>> >
>> > And template engines are welcome too, right?  The question is whether
>> > being here would be just about them having the foundation and
>> > infrastructure support or if there is a community aspect too.  If
>> > community matters, then it matters where they fit in Apache
>> > organizationally.  So rather than a blanket statement that any
>> > Velocity-related projects are welcome or not welcome, i prefer having
>> > the freedom to individually vet the merits and fit of project
>> > interested in joining the Velocity TLP.  And you, as a Velocity PMC
>> > member, would be very, very welcome to join in those discussions and
>> > decisions.
>>
>> Sure - I think thought that the project charter should be clearer.
> 
> I would love it to be.  Please help!
> 
>> >> But putting anything that uses Velocity into a TLP is like using
>> things
>> >> that use log4j into the same TLP (which would re-create Jakarta... :)
>> >
>> > Yep, good thing that's not the plan! :)
>>
>> That's not obvious to me.
> 
> Hopefully you mean that "wasn't" obvious to you.  I've gone to some
> pains to explain this... :)

I'm slow.

geir

> 
>> geir
>>
>> >
>> >> geir
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nathan Bubna wrote:
>> >> > Looks like the Velocity community is ready to head out on its own...
>> >> >
>> >> > +1 votes:
>> >> >  Nathan Bubna
>> >> >  Martin van den Bemt
>> >> >  James Mitchell
>> >> >  Henri Yandell
>> >> >  Jorg Schaible
>> >> >  Henning P. Schmiedehausen
>> >> >  Will Glass-Husain
>> >> >  Torsten Curdt
>> >> >  Rony G. Flatscher
>> >> >  Jesse Kuhnert
>> >> >  Dion Gillard
>> >> >  Daniel Rall
>> >> >  Matthijs Lambooy
>> >> >  Niall Pemberton
>> >> >  Claude Brisson
>> >> >  Malcolm Edgar
>> >> >  Christoph Reck
>> >> >
>> >> > +0 votes:
>> >> > -none-
>> >> >
>> >> > -1 votes:
>> >> > -none-
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not sure who's on the PMC or not, but i'm fairly sure most of
>> >> > those votes are binding. :)
>> >> >
>> >> > thanks, everyone!
>> >> >
>> >> > On 9/15/06, Nathan Bubna <nbubna@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> The Velocity project has for some time now been making plans for
a
>> >> >> proposal to the board that the Velocity projects leave the Jakarta
>> >> >> umbrella and become their own top level project.  Martin has
>> asked us
>> >> >> to hold a vote on the proposal here before he passes it along to
>> the
>> >> >> board.  So...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The proposal is available for your perusal at:
>> >> >>     http://wiki.apache.org/jakarta/TLPVelocity
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For the interested, most of the discussion took place on the
>> following
>> >> >> thread:
>> >> >>     http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=115530940100004&r=1&w=2
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And the vote happens here:
>> >> >> [ ] +1 I support the proposal
>> >> >> [ ] +0 I don't care
>> >> >> [ ] -1  I'm opposed to the proposal because...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks!
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message