Mailing-List: contact apachecon-discuss-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of nick.burch@alfresco.com
 designates 207.126.144.125 as permitted sender)
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 11:27:16 +0100 (BST)
From: Nick Burch <nick.burch@alfresco.com>
To: apachecon-discuss@apache.org
Subject: Re: Messaging track
In-Reply-To: <E24C6AC0-AA94-4A85-9D32-84A186F57D6C@holdenweb.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207241110520.19059@urchin.earth.li>
References: 
 <CAGeh-pF5-bk9_yCN_VYR8YfUuk6YC_TCP=hpBcYHXvb-gUVsKA@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1207231857440.19059@urchin.earth.li>
 <CAOvkMobtj5nZzfcuaED67_H7ytXwfiqK9vwqNkTD2C2xUQEsBg@mail.gmail.com>
 <66BD268F973E3544A665E5F503FB38B71B462FE829@DC01.bmw-carit.intra>
 <CANzUfzeEfLu9br4-WtSYomWkc6rTA6fQZr06+bSNW_Y3xybuuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <E24C6AC0-AA94-4A85-9D32-84A186F57D6C@holdenweb.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012, Steve Holden wrote:
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 12:27 AM, Sagara Gunathunga wrote:
>> +1 for "Messaging and Integration" track other than Apache Etch
>> project we have few more projects to submit proposals under this
>> category and it's hard to submit them under Camel track.
>
> Is it really a good idea to start messing about with the tracks at this 
> stage? The CfP has been published. There was a discussion period. Won't 
> changing hte tracks just murky the waters?

I think we need to be very careful about changes, certainly. In some cases 
we may be able to broaden slightly a track's scope, or perhaps add another 
one (though we're a bit short on rooms to do much of that....), but we do 
want to check that both communities are happy with the idea first!

> This is valuable experience: I had thought the ASF was cohesive enough 
> that each project would have received a notice that alerted them to the 
> fact that tracks for ACEY were being discussed. Maybe that's not the way 
> it works.

received a notice != acted on a notice....

All TLPs and podlings were notified, but not all responded. I think some 
projects had assumed that suitable tracks would appear without volunters, 
while this time we've been a bit stricter about tracks needing to have at 
least one volunteer as a track chair.

(We've been bitten in the past by "orphan" tracks, with good talks but not 
enough community involement, and no-one to interface between the 
planners and the projects, which is one of the reasons why the track chair 
was promoted from recommended to required this time round)

Nick