> Data Point #1: jUDDI and JaxMe have more people than there were when
> they exited incubation. In fact jUDDI has given rise to another
> project Apache Scout which is a JAXR implementation.
Thanks. I wasn't saying otherwise. I literally meant that I didn't know
what was going on with them. :-)
> Data Point #2: I was personally trying to get at least 2 other
> projects into the Apache fold (name withheld), but they eventually
> decided on codehaus. due to complicated/difficult incubation process
> (at least that was their perception)
What did they see as the difficulties or complications? Were they simply
perceptions based upon negative comments made by some without any basis in
reality, such that we need to address perception more than anything else?
> Data Point #3: Need clear guidlines "3 people who can +1 a release,
> from 3 different companies"?
That issue was addressed earlier with respect to XMLBeans. I don't know
that there really is a definitive answer other than that we want to make
sure that there is sufficient oversight and independence from any given
employer.
> Am thinking about Apollo, Hermes, Muse and how we could speed up
> the process for them to exit incubation.
Well, wait a minute. Those are going under WS, and the WS PMC is
responsible. Remember: committers are just individuals who have been
granted source control rights. Binding votes and the responsibility for
oversight are invested in the PMC. And the WS PMC certainly has
sufficiently broad membership. This is related to the issue I raised.
There is a fundamental difference between a project with multiple codebases
and an ontological gathering of projects.
If I recall correctly, the concern I had raised regarding those incubated
projects was in respect to project names, e.g., Apollo being a registered
trademark of HP.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
