Robert,
I renamed the thread, which has nothing to do with the Directory project,
and really no longer belongs here, but here it is. Perhaps community@ would
be better?
i'm a bit fed up with this the whole thread. i now seem to spend my spare time writing emails rather than code :(
if you had said "i'll volunteer to help every jakarta sub-project to realize that they want their own top level project" then i think the response would have been different.
Why? What do you think it would be different?
i think that the response would have been different had nicola volunteered to persuade all the jakarta sub-projects that they would benefit from moving out of jakarta. he did not.
nicola's proposal was that jakarta pmc politely ask almost all sub-projects (except jakarta-commons) to leave jakarta. (he didn't realize that the board seem to be strongly in favour of moving jakarta-commons out of jakarta as soon as possible.) so if nicola's proposal had been accepted,
jakarta would have been left with just a web site.
but it was more of a eulogy or vision for the future rather than a serious proposal. it didn't even have a VOTE prefix. i'm not surprised that it was largely ignored - especially since nicola resigned from the pmc soon after posting rather than fighting for his vision.
What do you see as the actual and/or psychological barriers that prevent mature projects from becoming TLPs?
i'm not sure there is a single reason. jakarta is very large and very diverse. i have some theories:
some sub-projects are just taking their time. sub-projects have their own goals and priorities.
jakarta is a club that is *very* hard to get into. sub-projects which have shed blood and tears to gain admittance are likely to take a lot of persuading that they should leave.
some sub-projects are viable only as part of a large community. unless the board supplies a suitable environment for them they will not volunteer to leave jakarta.
other sub-projects are thriving in the environment that jakarta provides. in this case, it seems like a big risk to be asked to leave all the hard work behind and start again from scratch in a top level project.
other sub-projects are unlikely to want to leave whilst similar sub-projects remain at jakarta.
being a jakarta product is worth quite a lot. being a jakarta product means quality. this impression has been repeated many times by users, journalists and publishers. jakarta has been an early adopter ways of java development (test driven development, continuous integration thanks to gump, extensive code review) that are now gaining wide spread acceptance.
there also seems to be a new generation for whom jakarta is a bigger name than apache. (this seems a little ironic to me since in the early days, jakarta was often criticized for relying on the reputation of apache.) why should sub-projects dream of leaving? of course, stefano's answer was that there's no reason why users should care how the ASF happens to manage it's projects - you can still be part of jakarta without being managed by the jakarta pmc. but this is hard to explain to people...
- robert
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
