xml-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steven Noels" <stev...@outerthought.org>
Subject RE: cross-project communications
Date Wed, 01 May 2002 19:51:54 GMT
Good point.

I for one am rather 'amused' in the difference of style *and* momentum
in between both general@ lists and projects, and indeed there exists
some partisanship that divides both. Duh. Oh well, part of the fun over
here is exactly participating in this electronic biosphere while
observing 'group dynamics'.

Apparently, the XML style of doing things is a bit more conservative
with regards to the creation of new subprojects, whereas Jakarta has a
history of scratching itches fairly often, and subsubprojects being
graduated to full-blown subprojects as a result of that. And both groups
feel pretty proud of their realisations, which is natural, of course.
Hence the heated discussions when overlap (and competition) comes into

* On a global level:

Over the past few weeks, there was an avalanche of new project proposals
on the Jakarta list, clearly some people start to believe ASF blessing
of a project is a safehaven for community-poor projects. To the outside
world, it isn't clear what the criteria are for new project proposals
(and indead only Jakarta explicitely lists those at
http://jakarta.apache.org/site/newproject.html, a pity this hasn't done
(to my knowledge) for the XML site as well, I keep on referring people
to the Jakarta site).

I believe rules for subproject and subsubproject creation should be
clearly stated on an ASF-wide level. Global policies or email contacts
that can give authorative answers to these issues are hard to discover
for newbies (even though I'm following a lot of email lists for the past
2 or 3 years, I still consider myself to be a novice in this regard). To
an outsider, both PMC's operate quite silently (I understand and
appreciate them keeping a low profile and having a supportive instead of
enforcing role), perhaps some joint statements on this matter could
clarify this. IMO, one of the issues to be tackled is the creation of
subsubprojects without some broader consensus (IMO!).

Apart from that, some people, myself included, articulated the need for
having a cross Apache list to discuss issues on commercial activities
(like support and consulting) based on Apache projects, and after some
private communications the common feeling was that we didn't really knew
where to go with our ideas.

So I am all +1 to discuss the need and eventually the setup of some
cross-project communication platform, not just because of Java topics
not being addressed as Santiago indicated, but because we are on the
brink of deteriorating partisanship between both communities. We all
depend on a spirit of rapid consensus and getting on with the work. If
we create a forum where we can ventilate crossproject issues and also
discuss/prepare project integration, the lists where the real work is
carried out are freed from these email avalanches which sometimes leave
a bad taste in one's mouth.

* The Centipede/Maven/Gump 'case':

I'm happy to see that the discussion is finally converging into a
positive and hopefully productive atmosphere. The only remaining
impression is that all of these projects have been build with a need for
coherence in mind, whether that is coherence for building projects,
managing dependencies or having a coherent website (The XML group has
opted to create a subproject Forrest for the latter). Apart from the
choosen solution, I believe presenting a coherent image of both the
Jakarta and XML communities and projects is of vital importance for the
uptake of our lovingly crafted goodies. We see a plethora of initiatives
in this direction nowadays but as the recent heated discussion just has
shown, it would have been better if both communities were aware of each
other a bit sooner.

As an aside from all this emotional stuff, on Forrest: our short term
goal is to provide a facility to build and maintain a coherent
xml.apache.org site. We're not in the business of dependency checking
(Gump is), project/build frameworks (Maven and Centipede are) or XML web
publishing (Cocoon is). By coincidence (and since we didn't know Maven
existed, see my previous statements), we have choosen Centipede to
bootstrap our project, and Cocoon as the publishing engine. I know Maven
does similar stuff on a project-level (correct me if I'm wrong), but
Forrest intends to go xml.apache.org-wide and is clearly
website-focused. But as I said, this is just an aside for people
wondering what all these strange new projects are about ;-)

Just my 2 eurocent,


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Santiago Gala [mailto:sgala@hisitech.com]
> Sent: woensdag 1 mei 2002 20:06
> To: Jakarta General List
> Subject: cross-project communications
> Berin Loritsch wrote:
> > Andrew C. Oliver wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Translation:
> >>>
> >>> Jakarta = jakarta.apache.org
> >>> XML = xml.apache.org
> >>>
> >>> And the reason on XML.apache.org there is no discussion is:
> >>> everyone seems to be on board with Forrest--which is
> using Centipede.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah so why can't these work together?  I still just don't
> get it.
> >> "Gee we don't like that lets do our own thing or integrate with
> >> anything but this or that".  It just baffles the crap out
> of me. If I
> >> had the choice.  I'd use NEITHER.  I choose Centaven WITH GUMP.
> >
> >
> >
> > Fine.  The history is that Forrest was in motion before I even knew
> > there was such a thing as Maven.  I know the folks involved with
> > Forrest, and they are top notch people.  The whole purpose
> of Forrest
> > is to work with GUMP.  (Notice the synergy: Forrest Gump).
> >
> > Forrest was started and talked about publicly on the general@xml
> > list before it was even started.  That is something that somewhat
> > perturbs me about the Turbine projects.  SOmething with Maven's
> > scope and ability should have been talked about publicly instead of
> > sneaking up on us.  When we get the message "convert all your
> > projects...", that would definitely catch alot of people off guard.
> >
> >
> I am interested is most of Jakarta-land, and in most of
> xml-land (the
> *instanceof* java part).
> I'm wondering if cross-communication lists would be needed.
> Since there
> are plenty of communities in Apache, the general lists are
> too general
> for me most of the time.
> Since the java.apache.org project was frozen a lot of time
> ago, we could
> reuse the name to create a general@java.apache.org list, or
> some similar
> cross-project structure to ease java development communications.
> The main points I see are:
> - xml is becoming fairly used everywhere, so that most of us
> are related
> to it somehow (specially as power-users or plain-users of the
> java-related tools)
> - a significant part of Jakarta is devoted to project infrastructure
> (build, test, document, ...)
> - infrastructure thingies springin in xml are being sent
> outside instead
> of being developed there.
> Java server is a big box to organize things, and XML is
> potentially even
> bigger, so I think some organizational thinking should be (is
> already?)
> going on. Also, one year and a half without an ApacheCon
> synchronization
> points does not help much.
> I'm not entering here to pick up flames, just looking for
> constructive
> solutions.
> Regards,
>     Santiago
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> <mailto:general-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> <mailto:general-help@jakarta.apache.org>

In case of troubles, e-mail:     webmaster@xml.apache.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:          general-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-help@xml.apache.org

View raw message